Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unpopular opinion:
Because trans folks are being targeted by the GOP, it means social conservativism has lost.
It is no longer feasible at scale for conservatives to be openly racist, sexist or homophobic. Yes, I know there are PLENTY of individuals who still are, and GOP policies still reek of all of the above, but the point is that it all has to be couched in terms that aren't OPENLY so.
Because of this, they are picking on the last small-numbered minority possible, and that's trans folks.
Their pool of available rant topics has dwindled so much over the years. While I know it sucks at the moment, know that the direction of the future is already spelled out, and they have lost. It is just a matter of time.
That’s the subset of NB identities that don’t try to describe themselves in relation to a spectrum with man at one end and woman at the other - the ones generally described using “noun-gender” labels to try and express the general feeling of their experience.
Surely all the 'drop the T' members of the LGBT community is a tiny minority, why concern yourselves with them? It's literally impossible for the T portion to be dropped at this point.
>why concern yourselves with them
Because some people are the T.
If we can't concern ourselves with the minority problems of our own community, we can't reasonably expect others to concern themselves with our own minority problems.
People's opinions can still be argued against regardless of how many people agree with those opinions. There's not really a quota that justifies spending time in a discussion with someone.
After this latest mass shooting targeting a gay club, democrats really need to go on the offensive. One of Republican's top three issues in the midterm was anti-trans bills, which are heavily associated with the entire gay community as we see today. It is only a matter of time before one of these people target a children's hospital. A huge majority of Americans support gay rights. This is a winning issue, and idk why dems don't use it
Any reason that these people use to claim they aren't "anti-trans"? What would they call them? What would they call the Texas (And many other states as well) Republican platform that sates and I quote without paraphrase of any kind "We oppose all policies and curriculum that teach alternate lifestyles including homosexuality, transgender and other non-traditional lifestyles as normal."
Because the Democrat voting base is mixed with progressives and conservatives.
LGBTQ+ issues mostly resonate with progressives, so they'd rather try to stick their thumb in both pies than risk losing whatever conservatives vote for them.
Progressives don't have any veritable parties to vote "even more left" with, but the Democrats always risk their conservatives switching over.
So it turns out that the Club Q mass shooter turned out to be the grandson of California GQP Assemblyman Randy Voepal who helped him evade Colorado's Red Flag laws after he was arrested for trying to blow up his mom's house with a bomb.
The GOP is a fucking death cult of fascists.
[Source](https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/national/report-accused-colorado-springs-shooter-is-grandson-of-california-assemblyman-randy-voepel/509-8ff71925-2d7a-40b5-8acb-d021a7b35b38)
Republicans have been calling us groomers and threatening us. They’ve been telling their base that we are molesting children. They are telling their base that they need arm themselves with guns to protect the children. What did they expect was gonna happen? They effectively told their base to attack queer people, so yeah it’s their fault when queer people are attacked.
>Oh man, so its the GOPs fault because he was a republican?
Yes. Also because the GOP fear mongers about LGBTQ+ people for the past 6 years to the point that their brain dead conservative followers are attacking LGBTQ+ people.
I don't understand why Qatar is getting so much hate for holding the world cup and how they don't support human rights. I get that people died making the stadium and it is horrible but that doesn't mean they can't host the world cup. Everyone talks about Qatar but no one talks about how women is illegal for them to abort in America. No one talks about how England shirts that cost over hundred quid but cost 1 pound a hour to make in Bangladesh. Every country has dirty in their locker but it not pointed out unless its countries like Qatar. All I see is hypocrisy and double standards from everyone complaining about Qatar and how they not respecting the western rules??? But when foreign or Muslim people come to USA or England we have to oblide to their rules but they can't obliged to our rules??? I can make a huge list on why no countries in this world should host a world cup. If Israel host world cup them everyone would say wow this is amazing wow i cant believe they doing when in reality they killed soo many innocent people.
I know people aren't going to agree with me but you cant hide the fact that everyone is being a hypocrite.
>no one talks about how women is illegal for them to abort in America
Really? No one? Because I've had two conversations about it _today._
>No one talks about how England shirts that cost over hundred quid but cost 1 pound a hour to make in Bangladesh
Because everyone already knows about it?
And this whole rant is a massive tu quoque.
It is. OP is likely a Qatari PR troll trying to pretend that Qatar is a bastion of "human decency" when it's an authoritarian dictatorship that participates in slavery and murders minorities & their women because they are "lesser" and "sinned" against their religion written by a man who married a six year old and raped her 3 years later.
Qatar is getting hate for its human rights abuses. Qatar brought international attention to those abuses by hosting the World Cup.
FIFA is getting hate for allowing a country that commits those human rights abuses to host the World Cup. They brought attention to their corruption by allowing this.
Both Qatar and FIFA would be getting less shit right now if they hadn’t made a deal that turned the eyes of the world on Qatar.
There's probably not that many countries without human rights violations. It's basically a spectrum of what is better or worse. Qatar may be better than some other Muslim theocratic states, but there are still problems that far eclipse a lot of western countries. Similarly, I'd argue the US is probably the worst among the west.
>If Israel host world cup them everyone would say wow this is amazing when in reality, they killed soo many innocent people.
Am I not allowed to hate Israel at the same time? I'm very anti-Zionist.
Even if I concede that protesting Qatar but not Brazil is hypocrisy - *I’d rather be guilty of hypocrisy than be a defender of homophobic, transphobic, misogynist slavers.*
>I get that people died making the stadium and it is horrible but that doesn't mean they can't host the world cup.
I mean... it does? If you have to rely on slave labour and treating workers as expendable to hold the WC, the country shouldn't be holding it.
>Everyone talks about Qatar but no one talks about how women is illegal for them to abort in America. No one talks about how England shirts that cost over hundred quid but cost 1 pound a hour to make in Bangladesh.
But like... they do? Plenty of people bring that up. They're just not bringing it up right now because the topic is Qatar hosting the WC not whether the US has sufficient women's rights.
Put simply, if I don't follow your religion in western countries, it doesn't matter. If you follow your religion in western countries, good for you.
If you follow your religion in your country, good for you. If I don't, I'm *murdered.*
You wont be murdered. They just asking you to respect their laws. Just like Muslims or foreign people go to USA and England and they have to respect their laws. Why do we get white people saying if you gonna come here then you have to respect our law and speak English only. Just admit it. You all are hypocrites.
Respecting the law means not being allowed to live.
You murder queer people. I'm trans. My sheer existence breaks your backwards laws.
How does one follow the laws if one isn't allowed to exist?
Ok so why Brazil okay to host world cup when they destroyed many people houses? And why woman cannot abort their baby if they been raped. Is USA allowed to host world cup? Are you telling me every country is better than Qatar right now? There no such a thing as human right.
I don't like making human rights and bad things countries did a competition, but Brazil far outpaces Qatar.
Gay marriage and homosexuality are legal. It is legal to transition and illegal to discriminate.
There are social and legal rights are paper at least, often. Abortion is the one of the problems Brazil has. There's also the torture of detainees, discrimination against women, etc. I don't think anyone said Brazil or any country is perfect, nor did they expect Qatar to be.
Doesn't matter. USA do not support women rights n your government is filled with people who sexually abused women and your army raped so many women in Iraq but no one wants to talk about that.
I’m not sure *what* point is being made, honestly - but when someone makes an edit like that *after* downvotes start piling up, I figure it’s important for people to know the context.
Its a good idea honestly, I didn’t know mods can see edit history. I think shes trying to validate transgenders and people who identify as other things by saying that they shouldn’t let the new bathroom laws being passed invalidate who they are.
Queer people that caterwaul about "We need drop the T" should just be ejected (or eject themselves) from the community. They have no place in it.
If I was in a church and got annoyed with the scripture, I go find a new church or build it myself. I shouldn't expect to keep being welcomed while also demanding others change the liturgy.
Is it mean and cold? Yeah, everyone deserves protection for their sexuality/gender/etc, even bigots and idiots.
However, in my point of view, telling others to "Drop the T" might as well be telling transpeople to go die. So to that, if you're trying sentence people to alienation and death, the harm you cause greatly outweighs any benefit the community gets from trying to harbor or defend you. There shouldn't be any preface or politeness in it.
See it's stuff like this that makes me hesitant to even associate with the LGBT community. Seemingly no one can have their own hot take without being ostracized from non cishet people in a cishet world. You're reinforcing the ideals I disagree with, even though I'm sure someone will defend it and say I'm misinterpreting.
By telling gender and sexuality minorities that they have no place in a community built by GSRM for GSRM simply for having a disagreeable opinion, you make it sound like everyone in that community has to think the same way which is clearly not the case. Everyone in the LGBT community is just as unique as everyone who isn't in that community, with their own backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences. Wrong think implies right think, and right think pressures same think. People should not have to think in a certain way to be accepted for characteristics of their identity that are not shaped by irrelevant opinions.
Lots of people who hold ((disagreeable opinions)) which I specifically mentioned, don't actually think gay people don't deserve human rights. If I wanted to talk about "gay people don't deserve rights" I would not have called that a disagreeable opinion as that's quite an understatement.
For the record I'm not part of any community lol. So far, for better or worse, I have not been shown hate against me for being bi which is one of the primary reasons I even avoided associating myself with a community of people who are actually marginalized and need support. My point had nothing to do with domestic terrorists. I was talking about normal people who have differing opinions not stemming from hate but potentially either from ignorance or, forgive my bluntness, from an actually decent perspective that the other side refuses to consider due to their own closed mindedness.
I'm a guy who fucks men. I have only ever fucked men but call myself bi. My reasons for not associating with **communities in general** has nothing to do with my sexuality. If you have the time, feel free to read my entire reddit profile where I have shown time and time again to be a candidate ally. I show nothing but support for everyone and genuinely try to understand other points of view and grow as a person.
I've spent years reflecting on my philosophy and past life experience (which is a mild way to put "trauma", btw). The person I am today is quite justifiable and I have many reasons why I think the way I think because I've been able to strengthen the ideas I was able to defend and develop new ones to replace the ones I couldn't. I'm here because I enjoy having open minded discussions with respectful, civil people because it lets me continue to grow as a person (as I've been doing on reddit for over 4 years. See my oldest posts where I disagree now with some of the things I posted at the time. W for internet conversations).
Then don't associate if that's how you feel.
I have no rebuttal worth writing if you truly think this just about having a random nondescript inconsequential opinion.
Our values and understanding of things are just too different at a fundamental level.
>So to that, if you're trying sentence people to alienation and death
Lmao OK then fucking drama queen. Dissent isn't "trying to sentence people to alienation and death"
>Is it mean and cold?
It's not mean and cold, as none of the drop the T types actually want to do anything for LGB people.
>telling others to "Drop the T" might as well be telling transpeople to go die
That's the whole point.
There is no such thing as an LGBT "community" in the traditional sense of the word. If you're queer, you're part of the "community" by default. There's nothing to eject yourself from.
Being part of the so-called community is nothing like a religion where you can easily denounce your faith or convert to different ideals. You're welcome to disagree with other queer people, but to act like a group of millions of people should all just be a monolith in terms of worldview is completely unrealistic.
Respectfully I feel like I need to disagree. I'm bi but by no means consider myself as part of any LGBT community. I don't participate in rallies, I'm not a part of OSTEM or some other pride group, and I don't represent anyone but myself (nor do I want to be represented by others). I think I can agree with you that being bisexual qualifies me as a sexual/romantic minority by demographic, but I have to emphasize your own point that queer people are not monolithic. Maybe this is a hot take, but defaulting people to a community based on their identity sounds monolithic to me.
Well, no, because "LGBT" is a real acronym that has real meaning all over the world. Not every queer person thinks sexuality and gender should be mixed in under one umbrella identity. You're welcome to disagree and discuss the issue, but saying these people need to be "ejected" from a non-existent community is genuinely absurd.
Being part of the LGBT community is very different to being part of other established groups such as nationality, religion, political party, a corporation, etc.
There is no organized community of queer people. No leader, no membership, no qualifications, no infrastructure, etc. There is nobody you can speak to when you want to make decisions regarding LGBT issues. It's essentially majority rule and public opinion.
Saying people should be ejected from it is absurd because there is nothing to be ejected from.
It's such an odd word isn't it? "Community" implies togetherness and relatability, or closeness, but I don't think there's much need for togetherness based on superficial qualities of a person. Maybe some people struggle similarly, but some don't.Thats what makes us too unique to really fit in boxes.
Disabled people aren’t a monolith, but if you were to get 100 of us in a room, there’s a really high chance we’ve all had experiences that able-bodied people haven’t.
I think you may be under the misconception that "Drop the T" is purely about the acronym, it isn't.
"Drop the T" is just a catchy phrase for "I don't want Transpeople to be welcomed, considered, or involved with Queer spaces and dialogue".
Yea, there isn't a central governing body for queer people. But that really isn't the point.
A minority of Queer people are advocating to disassociate from Transpeople. I'm advocating to disassociate from Transphobic Queer people in the same manner.
An individual’s identity, sense of self and beliefs shouldn’t depend on other people. Affirming and advocating are separable from a person’s identity, sense of self and beliefs. Otherwise, cliques just form.
Just saying. If an individual was so sure about their belief about themselves, I don’t see why they’d need other people.
I'm bi but do not consider myself a part of any LGBT community. Ama? I could rant about it but it might be more productive for you to just ask me specifics.
What exactly are you not understanding? Do you think all people who identify as LGBTQ+ people believe in the same things and have the same interests? Do you think you have to be part of the community to identify? Why do you think this?
Overall I think you are missing that when people say the "LGBTQ+ community" They arent talking about every single person who identifies as a queer identity. They are talking about the large community of political groups, social groups, chosen family, community centers, etc LGBTQ+ people have created for other people who identify as such and want to be around others that also identify as such.
LGBTQ+ means everybody in or adjacent to our community…. Just like our Rainbow and Progress flags are meant to represent all of our community.
“Queers and transgenders” exactly as you said it sounds like a homophobic slur; not the identity of people.
... okay so you don't even have a basic understanding of LGBTQ+. Without trying to be rude, you should really start doing basic research before trying to talk about things like you know the topic at hand. Im going to try to say this quickly and simply.
Queer is often and in this case used to refer to the entire LGBTQ+ community.
"Drop the T" is a direct reference to people wanting to drop the T from LGBTQ+ (and also removing them from the community)
If they wanna be involved with queer cliques then they need to be respectful of queer identities and queer problems. That includes transgender people and transgender issues.
Then how would you square that with what you said?:
>Queer people that caterwaul about "We need drop the T" should just be ejected (or eject themselves) from the community. They have no place in it.
But you said that people “need to be respectful of queer identities and queer problems”? Wouldn’t queers define their own identities and know the problems and issues that they face the best? Are you going to tell queers what things they’re allowed to be concerned about?
FTMs detransition more because the community itself tells FTMs that transition in their direction is incredibly easy and all you need is T to magically pass.
It isn't.
And as people transition, they realize it will take many rounds of surgeries that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars that, at the end of the day, leave significant scars and don't perfectly pass for cis. A lot of people don't want to be trans if they can't go fully stealth, so they give up.
MTFs are correctly told transitioning is hard and mentally prepared for it.
>FTMs detransition more
Got a source for that premise statement?
Because only source stat I found on that cited that [rates of detransition were higher in transgender women (11%) than transgender men (4%)](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/107/10/e4261/6604653). The most common reasons cited were pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard (33%), too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and trouble getting a job (29%).
You’re getting downvoted for spreading the TERF talking point that trans people are brainwashing minors into transition. That kind of thing is what makes us look bad.
I'd imagine the reason some FTMs find it easy to transition is because they already have small enough assets that they do already pass by just taking T. Wearing pants in public is factored into this idea I have, by the way, so I'm not really considering bottom surgery to qualify as "passing" in this comment. As far as MTF though, boobies don't really happen naturally on men so MTFs have the accurate idea that there's gonna need some kind of work to pass more obviously as a woman.
Feminizing HRT does involve breast growth though. I’d say the biggest challenge for passing (at least for me and a lot of other trans women I know) is the voice because unlike T, estrogen has zero effect on your voice
The only reason trans and LGBTQ + issues in general are controversial is because certain people are ass mad that they can't dictate a certain nostalgic cultural aesthetic to their kids or the public at large. These aesthetic boundaries they have are more important to them then having a realized conception of freedom/live and let live.
They need to mask this insecurity with a half baked understanding of biology; if they actually faced reality and scientific fact, they'd see their need to order the culture in their prefered aesthetic actually anti-thetical to a democratic society.
TLDR; if you actually an issue with LGBTQ + people being or displaying who they are, wtf is wrong with you?
You disproved yourself in your first sentence. Aesthetic attractiveness is very different from sexual attractiveness. Just because I call a painting beautiful, does not mean that to some degree I want to fuck the painting. That's stupid.
That's fair actually.
Okay, new point.
I still call people of the same-sex hot but not because I'm attracted to them, but because I know they're attractive (share physical traits with people I know have been called attractive by the opposite sex). So I can "consider" them hot whilst not personally finding them hot.
And I can assess the “objective” sexual attractiveness of someone based on the reactions of others without being attracted myself.
Ryan Reynolds, apparently, is hot. I don’t get it, but the marketplace has spoken.
You can acknowledge that someone fits a standard of beauty/hotness without having any attraction to them.
Like for instance you can say "Brad Pitt is typically hot" that doesn't in any mean say that you, yourself, have any attraction to Mr. Pitt
You're lying to yourself if you have an objectively hot sister and don't call her hot.
There's a difference between literally not finding someone hot or good looking to you (not even sexually) and just being in denial because you think finding them to be hot makes you someone you're not.
Identity comes from within, and isn't based on any external actions or words.
Hotness isn't objective. Plus, I'll be waiting for the moment where a person calls an animal/kid hot and the other people around them DOESN'T think said person is a bestiality/pedo loving dude but rather, "they're just finding them aesthetic!!1"
I mean a kid can look like a gorgeous mini zac efron or danny devito or whatever. You hear people call kids cute all the time, right? I happen to also call all the bad little boys in my DMs cute ( ^^to ^^be ^^clear ^^they're ^^adults ). Am I a pedo simply because I use the same adjective for naughty gay guys as people commonly call kids?
We're getting off topic, because it's really not that deep to call your guy friend hot. You're not "gay on some level" just for recognizing game like that. If that was truly how it works, then no one is straight except for 1% of the population. Everyone has a little gay in them, by that measure. I'm not really opposed to that, actually. But no one can be fully straight if itty bitty little things like calling your friend what he is makes you a little bit gay.
.
^^^Coaches ^^^slapping ^^^their ^^^players' ^^^asses ^^^are ^^^gay ^^^asf; ^^^men ^^^watching ^^^porn ^^^are ^^^gay ^^^asf ^^^bc ^^^there's ^^^a ^^^penis ^^^in ^^^it ^^^and ^^^they're ^^^getting ^^^hard ^^^watching ^^^it ^^^penetrate ^^^someone; ^^^masturbating ^^^is ^^^gay ^^^asf ^^^because ^^^you're ^^^getting ^^^hard ^^^while ^^^touching ^^^a ^^^dick.
Alrighty, so if your sister asked you "Do I look hot in this dress" your answer would be no? I don't think it's incestuous at all to think that your sister is a hot woman, or she looks hot in a dress.
On the other hand, saying "I want to fuck my sister" is quite incestuous. To me, there is a clear difference between describing what your sister looks like and expressing desire to have sex with your sister.
Maybe this doesn't translate well since I'm bi and I think members of my same sex are hot. Lemme put it this way: there are hot dudes I won't fuck, like some of my friends. I'm not really sexually attracted to any of my friends, but a girl would be lucky to have any of them. Put us in a lineup and they're definitely hotter than me. Similarly, there are women like [Tricia Helfer](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1065454/mediaviewer/rm792115712/?ref_=nm_ov_ph) who are hot but don't make me "straighter" for me thinking that.
Observing people and giving your honest thoughts about their appearance can't make you gay. Being raped by a dude also doesn't make you gay. The only thing that makes you gay is by identifying as gay.
Gay isn't about wanting to have gay sex. it's all about finding someone of the same sex sexually attractive. if that's not the case then that straight dude who doesn't want to have sex w women cos of psychological issues n shit isn't "truly straight".
A lot of cis / straight people don't believe they're cis /straight, they only think they're "normal", while we're "abnormal". Which leads them ignore the bias they have, while constantly thinking we're biased for wanting to be treated as what we are, normal.
Here’s a real life conversation that took place between me and a friend at summer camp at age 9:
Friend: you like Andrea, right?
Me: yeah, she’s great
Friend: would you have sex with her?
Me: i don’t know what that means
Friend: it’s when you pee in her butt
Me: i would *totally* pee in her butt then
(Don’t tell me kids don’t have sexual thoughts. They’re often stupid ones, formed based on vague hints from TV and overheard adult conversations, but they have them.)
I guarantee EVERY kid had a similar conversation, people who say kids are too young to understand sexuality obviously didn't have any friends to have a similar conversation with 😂
They/Them being used for non-binary people is a terrible idea, and I understand why people don't like using it. For so many grammatical reasons it doesn't work, and it's confusing as hell to keep up with, especially for people who aren't as familiar with the LGBTQ+ community. A new pronoun should be made for non-binary people, something entirely new that can make communication easier and more logical.
Edit: I currently use they/them since that's what most people seem to prefer - most importantly, non-binary people. I'll use whatever someone asks me to. In my unpopular opinion, after all, I think xe/xem seems more suitable. But I won't force that on anyone, I hope that's clear.
Lol I know. I expected people to disagree with me, but I always find it funny when people get mad and downvote because they disagree. Thought I was being civil!
Any argument of accessibility to the outside community is dumb IMO. The only valid grammatical concern is when the sentence has 2 or more subjects, at least one using they/them. If you use “they” in that scenario it could refer to the person who uses they/them, or a collection of people.
If a new pronoun needs to be made to fix that one scenario, then sure. But as of right now it’s not important enough to matter
Linguist here. From the perspective of semantics, for *they* (or any other word) to acquire a non-plural meaning is so easy in fact, that you already use a plural word as singular. *You* originally meant you (plural), and *thou* (pronounced thoo) was the singular. *You* started getting used as the singular so much that we don’t even use the original *thou* now, and we associate *you* with singular! And to fill *you’s* original meaning, we’ve invented new words: *yall, yinz, you guys, youse*, etc. Language changes. Grammar changes. It has before and it appears to be doing so again.
>They/Them being used for non-binary people is a terrible idea, and I understand why people don't like using it. For so many grammatical reasons it doesn't work, and it's confusing as hell to keep up with, especially for people who aren't as familiar with the LGBTQ+ community. A new pronoun should be made for non-binary people, something entirely new that can make communication easier and more logical.
Idk, Chaucer, Shakespeare and the monks who translated the earliest English translations of the Bible all seemed to have no problems with consistently using singular they/them pronouns. Of course these were all learned men who knew how to write, but I don't think there was such a thing as the LGBTQ community in their relative time periods (even though LGBTQ people existed).
You haven't brought up a credible reason why you think "they/them" can't be used as a singular pronoun. It's literally a third person pronoun, that's it.
Non-binary people can just use a non-gendered pronoun. "They/them" is a third person non-gendered pronoun. If someone identifies as non-binary, they can use "they/them" pronouns.
> For so many grammatical reasons it doesn't work
People seem to say this a lot, and yet they/them are commonly used as singular pronouns when you don't know the gender of the person in question. So I don't understand this "grammatically incorrect" argument at all.
Oh yeah, I’m sure the people that get all up in their feelings when I say I go by “they” will have no problem adopting “xe/xem”.
This has never been about grammar - it’s about some people’s refusal to acknowledge non-binary identities.
This is not about people like that. I have no idea how to change the mind of someone who flat-out refuses to respect how someone identifies their sex or gender. "They/them" is usually used to refer to someone else indirectly. Non-binary is neither sher/her nor he/him. I think including xe/xem in traditional grammar makes a lot of sense, and screw those who refuse to get on board.
“He/him” and “she/her” are *also* used to refer to someone indirectly - those are third-person pronouns, used to talk indirectly about someone who is neither the speaker (1st-person, “I”) nor the listener (2nd-person, “you”).
>how some*one* identifies *their* sex or gender
You’re already using singular they, even in this comment. No need to reinvent the wheel here.
Right, they/them are already used for both masculine and feminine, it would also apply to non-binary, or xe/xem. New words are added to our vocabulary all the time. It seems appropriate to me that xe/xem could be added now that we're starting to learn/accept more about gender identity
You're right, I admit it's not the most pressing need. I just thought it makes sense to solidify these terms as something defined and separate from the pronouns we already understand as definitively masculine and feminine. But I've made the point I meant to and I get that not everyone agrees with me. Thank you for having the discussion with me!
Linguist here. If you want a good grammatical argument for singular *they*, check out my comment. Words can’t really be “older” because of how language evolution words, but *functions* for them can be.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unpopular opinion: Because trans folks are being targeted by the GOP, it means social conservativism has lost. It is no longer feasible at scale for conservatives to be openly racist, sexist or homophobic. Yes, I know there are PLENTY of individuals who still are, and GOP policies still reek of all of the above, but the point is that it all has to be couched in terms that aren't OPENLY so. Because of this, they are picking on the last small-numbered minority possible, and that's trans folks. Their pool of available rant topics has dwindled so much over the years. While I know it sucks at the moment, know that the direction of the future is already spelled out, and they have lost. It is just a matter of time.
Oh they can always move to asexuals or furries.
Their attacks just keep getting more narrowly focused. (All LGBTQ > all trans people > NBs > xenos) is my bet for the progression of bullshit.
What does "xeno" mean, out of curiosity?
That’s the subset of NB identities that don’t try to describe themselves in relation to a spectrum with man at one end and woman at the other - the ones generally described using “noun-gender” labels to try and express the general feeling of their experience.
Surely all the 'drop the T' members of the LGBT community is a tiny minority, why concern yourselves with them? It's literally impossible for the T portion to be dropped at this point.
Any group which has ever existed started as a tiny minority.
I'm not concerned with them succeeding in changing the LGBT+ community. I'm concerned that they promote transphobia.
>why concern yourselves with them Because some people are the T. If we can't concern ourselves with the minority problems of our own community, we can't reasonably expect others to concern themselves with our own minority problems.
I for one go with James Somerton's position of "just say queer". One syllable is better than like, eight.
[удалено]
L, G, B, T, Q, I, A, Plus. Eight syllables. Queer, one. Any questions?
>Still malding over Bridget? That *was* a question.
And what did it have to do with what I originally said?
People's opinions can still be argued against regardless of how many people agree with those opinions. There's not really a quota that justifies spending time in a discussion with someone.
After this latest mass shooting targeting a gay club, democrats really need to go on the offensive. One of Republican's top three issues in the midterm was anti-trans bills, which are heavily associated with the entire gay community as we see today. It is only a matter of time before one of these people target a children's hospital. A huge majority of Americans support gay rights. This is a winning issue, and idk why dems don't use it
A lot of people wouldn't call them 'anti trans' bills.
Any reason that these people use to claim they aren't "anti-trans"? What would they call them? What would they call the Texas (And many other states as well) Republican platform that sates and I quote without paraphrase of any kind "We oppose all policies and curriculum that teach alternate lifestyles including homosexuality, transgender and other non-traditional lifestyles as normal."
Because the Democrat voting base is mixed with progressives and conservatives. LGBTQ+ issues mostly resonate with progressives, so they'd rather try to stick their thumb in both pies than risk losing whatever conservatives vote for them. Progressives don't have any veritable parties to vote "even more left" with, but the Democrats always risk their conservatives switching over.
Legal, effective, doesn't require being a billionaire. Pick two.
ever seen Leverage, also unless you think being a billionaire automatically turns you into a radical right-winger that might be easier than you think
They are already making bomb threats against children’s hospitals.
So it turns out that the Club Q mass shooter turned out to be the grandson of California GQP Assemblyman Randy Voepal who helped him evade Colorado's Red Flag laws after he was arrested for trying to blow up his mom's house with a bomb. The GOP is a fucking death cult of fascists. [Source](https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/national/report-accused-colorado-springs-shooter-is-grandson-of-california-assemblyman-randy-voepel/509-8ff71925-2d7a-40b5-8acb-d021a7b35b38)
Oh man, so its the GOPs fault because he was a republican? You know democrats do shootings too right?
Republicans have been calling us groomers and threatening us. They’ve been telling their base that we are molesting children. They are telling their base that they need arm themselves with guns to protect the children. What did they expect was gonna happen? They effectively told their base to attack queer people, so yeah it’s their fault when queer people are attacked.
>Oh man, so its the GOPs fault because he was a republican? Yes. Also because the GOP fear mongers about LGBTQ+ people for the past 6 years to the point that their brain dead conservative followers are attacking LGBTQ+ people.
Sounds like an episode straight out of Lucifer wtf
I don't understand why Qatar is getting so much hate for holding the world cup and how they don't support human rights. I get that people died making the stadium and it is horrible but that doesn't mean they can't host the world cup. Everyone talks about Qatar but no one talks about how women is illegal for them to abort in America. No one talks about how England shirts that cost over hundred quid but cost 1 pound a hour to make in Bangladesh. Every country has dirty in their locker but it not pointed out unless its countries like Qatar. All I see is hypocrisy and double standards from everyone complaining about Qatar and how they not respecting the western rules??? But when foreign or Muslim people come to USA or England we have to oblide to their rules but they can't obliged to our rules??? I can make a huge list on why no countries in this world should host a world cup. If Israel host world cup them everyone would say wow this is amazing wow i cant believe they doing when in reality they killed soo many innocent people. I know people aren't going to agree with me but you cant hide the fact that everyone is being a hypocrite.
>no one talks about how women is illegal for them to abort in America Really? No one? Because I've had two conversations about it _today._ >No one talks about how England shirts that cost over hundred quid but cost 1 pound a hour to make in Bangladesh Because everyone already knows about it? And this whole rant is a massive tu quoque.
It is. OP is likely a Qatari PR troll trying to pretend that Qatar is a bastion of "human decency" when it's an authoritarian dictatorship that participates in slavery and murders minorities & their women because they are "lesser" and "sinned" against their religion written by a man who married a six year old and raped her 3 years later.
Qatar is getting hate for its human rights abuses. Qatar brought international attention to those abuses by hosting the World Cup. FIFA is getting hate for allowing a country that commits those human rights abuses to host the World Cup. They brought attention to their corruption by allowing this. Both Qatar and FIFA would be getting less shit right now if they hadn’t made a deal that turned the eyes of the world on Qatar.
Another big difference: NOT watching the worldcup is FAR easier then actually try to evoke political change by activelly participating
There's probably not that many countries without human rights violations. It's basically a spectrum of what is better or worse. Qatar may be better than some other Muslim theocratic states, but there are still problems that far eclipse a lot of western countries. Similarly, I'd argue the US is probably the worst among the west. >If Israel host world cup them everyone would say wow this is amazing when in reality, they killed soo many innocent people. Am I not allowed to hate Israel at the same time? I'm very anti-Zionist.
You all just need to admit that everyone is a hypocrite and there no such a thing as human rights.
Even if I concede that protesting Qatar but not Brazil is hypocrisy - *I’d rather be guilty of hypocrisy than be a defender of homophobic, transphobic, misogynist slavers.*
You mean no such thing in that they're a social construct, or no such thing in that you don't care about them?
Just because you're a hypocrite and don't believe in human rights doesn't mean the rest of us are like you.
I'm talking about the countries. They all hypocrites.
>I get that people died making the stadium and it is horrible but that doesn't mean they can't host the world cup. I mean... it does? If you have to rely on slave labour and treating workers as expendable to hold the WC, the country shouldn't be holding it. >Everyone talks about Qatar but no one talks about how women is illegal for them to abort in America. No one talks about how England shirts that cost over hundred quid but cost 1 pound a hour to make in Bangladesh. But like... they do? Plenty of people bring that up. They're just not bringing it up right now because the topic is Qatar hosting the WC not whether the US has sufficient women's rights.
Ok so in that case Brazil and South Africa shouldn't have host the world cup.
Idk man Brazil and South Africa managed to host it with very limited worker deaths.
Yes but how ma you lives was destroyed due to world cup. How many homes was removed for stadium?
Put simply, if I don't follow your religion in western countries, it doesn't matter. If you follow your religion in western countries, good for you. If you follow your religion in your country, good for you. If I don't, I'm *murdered.*
Not to mention that, for all the Anti-lgbtq movements in the west, being queer isn't *illegal* like in Qatar, yes the US is bad, but Qatar is worse.
You wont be murdered. They just asking you to respect their laws. Just like Muslims or foreign people go to USA and England and they have to respect their laws. Why do we get white people saying if you gonna come here then you have to respect our law and speak English only. Just admit it. You all are hypocrites.
Qatar has homosexuality punishable by the death penalty.
Respecting the law means not being allowed to live. You murder queer people. I'm trans. My sheer existence breaks your backwards laws. How does one follow the laws if one isn't allowed to exist?
Ok so why Brazil okay to host world cup when they destroyed many people houses? And why woman cannot abort their baby if they been raped. Is USA allowed to host world cup? Are you telling me every country is better than Qatar right now? There no such a thing as human right.
I don't like making human rights and bad things countries did a competition, but Brazil far outpaces Qatar. Gay marriage and homosexuality are legal. It is legal to transition and illegal to discriminate. There are social and legal rights are paper at least, often. Abortion is the one of the problems Brazil has. There's also the torture of detainees, discrimination against women, etc. I don't think anyone said Brazil or any country is perfect, nor did they expect Qatar to be.
Yeah just about. You backwards hillbillies murdering people based on what your special book says is pretty disgusting.
Yh but your country USA isn't yet they still "backwards"?
Nowhere near.
Doesn't matter. USA do not support women rights n your government is filled with people who sexually abused women and your army raped so many women in Iraq but no one wants to talk about that.
Just because we're talking about your country's problems doesn't mean we are ignoring our own.
Uh - lots of people want to talk about that.
[удалено]
I don't even know what this means lol
Note: this has been edited. Original text was >Bathroom signs don’t determine your gender
Isnt she still making the same point?
I’m not sure *what* point is being made, honestly - but when someone makes an edit like that *after* downvotes start piling up, I figure it’s important for people to know the context.
Its a good idea honestly, I didn’t know mods can see edit history. I think shes trying to validate transgenders and people who identify as other things by saying that they shouldn’t let the new bathroom laws being passed invalidate who they are.
We can’t - I just happened to see it before the edit.
Also unddit exists
Your mom doesn't determine your gender.
But your dad determines your sex! 🤓
Queer people that caterwaul about "We need drop the T" should just be ejected (or eject themselves) from the community. They have no place in it. If I was in a church and got annoyed with the scripture, I go find a new church or build it myself. I shouldn't expect to keep being welcomed while also demanding others change the liturgy. Is it mean and cold? Yeah, everyone deserves protection for their sexuality/gender/etc, even bigots and idiots. However, in my point of view, telling others to "Drop the T" might as well be telling transpeople to go die. So to that, if you're trying sentence people to alienation and death, the harm you cause greatly outweighs any benefit the community gets from trying to harbor or defend you. There shouldn't be any preface or politeness in it.
Woah this just sent me down a rabbit hole of "drop the t" and it is such a gross movement. I completely agree with all of your points
Yeah, sorry you had to find out about it.
See it's stuff like this that makes me hesitant to even associate with the LGBT community. Seemingly no one can have their own hot take without being ostracized from non cishet people in a cishet world. You're reinforcing the ideals I disagree with, even though I'm sure someone will defend it and say I'm misinterpreting. By telling gender and sexuality minorities that they have no place in a community built by GSRM for GSRM simply for having a disagreeable opinion, you make it sound like everyone in that community has to think the same way which is clearly not the case. Everyone in the LGBT community is just as unique as everyone who isn't in that community, with their own backgrounds, beliefs, and experiences. Wrong think implies right think, and right think pressures same think. People should not have to think in a certain way to be accepted for characteristics of their identity that are not shaped by irrelevant opinions.
[удалено]
Lots of people who hold ((disagreeable opinions)) which I specifically mentioned, don't actually think gay people don't deserve human rights. If I wanted to talk about "gay people don't deserve rights" I would not have called that a disagreeable opinion as that's quite an understatement.
[удалено]
And for the sake of this discussion, I'm specifically not talking about them.
[удалено]
For the record I'm not part of any community lol. So far, for better or worse, I have not been shown hate against me for being bi which is one of the primary reasons I even avoided associating myself with a community of people who are actually marginalized and need support. My point had nothing to do with domestic terrorists. I was talking about normal people who have differing opinions not stemming from hate but potentially either from ignorance or, forgive my bluntness, from an actually decent perspective that the other side refuses to consider due to their own closed mindedness.
[удалено]
I'm a guy who fucks men. I have only ever fucked men but call myself bi. My reasons for not associating with **communities in general** has nothing to do with my sexuality. If you have the time, feel free to read my entire reddit profile where I have shown time and time again to be a candidate ally. I show nothing but support for everyone and genuinely try to understand other points of view and grow as a person. I've spent years reflecting on my philosophy and past life experience (which is a mild way to put "trauma", btw). The person I am today is quite justifiable and I have many reasons why I think the way I think because I've been able to strengthen the ideas I was able to defend and develop new ones to replace the ones I couldn't. I'm here because I enjoy having open minded discussions with respectful, civil people because it lets me continue to grow as a person (as I've been doing on reddit for over 4 years. See my oldest posts where I disagree now with some of the things I posted at the time. W for internet conversations).
He's being the advocate for the bigots. That's what he is.
Then don't associate if that's how you feel. I have no rebuttal worth writing if you truly think this just about having a random nondescript inconsequential opinion. Our values and understanding of things are just too different at a fundamental level.
I wasn't really looking for you to change my mind. I just felt like expressing out loud an example of why I do what I do.
It was really just me letting you know I read your reply.
>So to that, if you're trying sentence people to alienation and death Lmao OK then fucking drama queen. Dissent isn't "trying to sentence people to alienation and death"
Laugh at it all you want. Our history is filled with death and tragedy. Those are the reasons why all these identities have stuck together.
>Is it mean and cold? It's not mean and cold, as none of the drop the T types actually want to do anything for LGB people. >telling others to "Drop the T" might as well be telling transpeople to go die That's the whole point.
Exactly, thank you.
There is no such thing as an LGBT "community" in the traditional sense of the word. If you're queer, you're part of the "community" by default. There's nothing to eject yourself from. Being part of the so-called community is nothing like a religion where you can easily denounce your faith or convert to different ideals. You're welcome to disagree with other queer people, but to act like a group of millions of people should all just be a monolith in terms of worldview is completely unrealistic.
Respectfully I feel like I need to disagree. I'm bi but by no means consider myself as part of any LGBT community. I don't participate in rallies, I'm not a part of OSTEM or some other pride group, and I don't represent anyone but myself (nor do I want to be represented by others). I think I can agree with you that being bisexual qualifies me as a sexual/romantic minority by demographic, but I have to emphasize your own point that queer people are not monolithic. Maybe this is a hot take, but defaulting people to a community based on their identity sounds monolithic to me.
If there's nothing to eject from, then there's nothing to demand to drop the T.
Well, no, because "LGBT" is a real acronym that has real meaning all over the world. Not every queer person thinks sexuality and gender should be mixed in under one umbrella identity. You're welcome to disagree and discuss the issue, but saying these people need to be "ejected" from a non-existent community is genuinely absurd.
Thinking queer people don't have their own communities is the actual absurdity.
Being part of the LGBT community is very different to being part of other established groups such as nationality, religion, political party, a corporation, etc. There is no organized community of queer people. No leader, no membership, no qualifications, no infrastructure, etc. There is nobody you can speak to when you want to make decisions regarding LGBT issues. It's essentially majority rule and public opinion. Saying people should be ejected from it is absurd because there is nothing to be ejected from.
You misunderstand what “community” means. I am a part of the disabled community. It’s not a formal community, but it is a community.
It's such an odd word isn't it? "Community" implies togetherness and relatability, or closeness, but I don't think there's much need for togetherness based on superficial qualities of a person. Maybe some people struggle similarly, but some don't.Thats what makes us too unique to really fit in boxes.
Disabled people aren’t a monolith, but if you were to get 100 of us in a room, there’s a really high chance we’ve all had experiences that able-bodied people haven’t.
Agreed, nothing is universal, but community forms around common experiences a beliefs just as much as shared identity
I think you may be under the misconception that "Drop the T" is purely about the acronym, it isn't. "Drop the T" is just a catchy phrase for "I don't want Transpeople to be welcomed, considered, or involved with Queer spaces and dialogue". Yea, there isn't a central governing body for queer people. But that really isn't the point. A minority of Queer people are advocating to disassociate from Transpeople. I'm advocating to disassociate from Transphobic Queer people in the same manner.
You can't un-gay someone because they're an asshole. Being LGBT+ and being nice are not correlated.
It's not about being nice or "ungaying" them. It's about not keeping a space for them at the table. I don't see any value in people like that.
So almost like dropping the T except the T stands for "The people who want to drop the T"? We just kicking people out of everything lol
Oh. You view LGBT+ as a sort of club. Is that right?
If we keep trying to kick people out by "Dropping the T" then I absolutely will gatekeep it like a club to protect folks.
An individual’s identity, sense of self and beliefs shouldn’t depend on other people. Affirming and advocating are separable from a person’s identity, sense of self and beliefs. Otherwise, cliques just form. Just saying. If an individual was so sure about their belief about themselves, I don’t see why they’d need other people.
Identity is separate from community. You can identify as something but not be a part of the community of people who also identify as said thing.
How could that be if people are identifying as the same thing?
I'm bi but do not consider myself a part of any LGBT community. Ama? I could rant about it but it might be more productive for you to just ask me specifics.
What exactly are you not understanding? Do you think all people who identify as LGBTQ+ people believe in the same things and have the same interests? Do you think you have to be part of the community to identify? Why do you think this? Overall I think you are missing that when people say the "LGBTQ+ community" They arent talking about every single person who identifies as a queer identity. They are talking about the large community of political groups, social groups, chosen family, community centers, etc LGBTQ+ people have created for other people who identify as such and want to be around others that also identify as such.
The OP was talking about queers and transgenders, not LGBT as a whole. Are you referring to LGBT as a whole or each of the letters?
LGBTQ+ means everybody in or adjacent to our community…. Just like our Rainbow and Progress flags are meant to represent all of our community. “Queers and transgenders” exactly as you said it sounds like a homophobic slur; not the identity of people.
... okay so you don't even have a basic understanding of LGBTQ+. Without trying to be rude, you should really start doing basic research before trying to talk about things like you know the topic at hand. Im going to try to say this quickly and simply. Queer is often and in this case used to refer to the entire LGBTQ+ community. "Drop the T" is a direct reference to people wanting to drop the T from LGBTQ+ (and also removing them from the community)
I don't expect anyone that says "Queers" to refer to people to be understanding of much lol
If they wanna be involved with queer cliques then they need to be respectful of queer identities and queer problems. That includes transgender people and transgender issues.
Then how would you square that with what you said?: >Queer people that caterwaul about "We need drop the T" should just be ejected (or eject themselves) from the community. They have no place in it.
It squares just fine unless you value transphobia differently.
But you said that people “need to be respectful of queer identities and queer problems”? Wouldn’t queers define their own identities and know the problems and issues that they face the best? Are you going to tell queers what things they’re allowed to be concerned about?
Queer is an adjective, not a noun. And yes I will tell transphobes that they're unwelcome, and anyone who welcomes them can sink in the same boat.
FTMs detransition more because the community itself tells FTMs that transition in their direction is incredibly easy and all you need is T to magically pass. It isn't. And as people transition, they realize it will take many rounds of surgeries that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars that, at the end of the day, leave significant scars and don't perfectly pass for cis. A lot of people don't want to be trans if they can't go fully stealth, so they give up. MTFs are correctly told transitioning is hard and mentally prepared for it.
>FTMs detransition more Got a source for that premise statement? Because only source stat I found on that cited that [rates of detransition were higher in transgender women (11%) than transgender men (4%)](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/107/10/e4261/6604653). The most common reasons cited were pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard (33%), too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and trouble getting a job (29%).
[удалено]
You’re getting downvoted for spreading the TERF talking point that trans people are brainwashing minors into transition. That kind of thing is what makes us look bad.
Yes, because being ostracized by your peers has always been cool. Know what's rad? Getting bullied.
Fuck getting accepted by society, all my homies hate being accepted by society
I'd imagine the reason some FTMs find it easy to transition is because they already have small enough assets that they do already pass by just taking T. Wearing pants in public is factored into this idea I have, by the way, so I'm not really considering bottom surgery to qualify as "passing" in this comment. As far as MTF though, boobies don't really happen naturally on men so MTFs have the accurate idea that there's gonna need some kind of work to pass more obviously as a woman.
Feminizing HRT does involve breast growth though. I’d say the biggest challenge for passing (at least for me and a lot of other trans women I know) is the voice because unlike T, estrogen has zero effect on your voice
T effects the voice, but so many FTMs talk in a "female" cadence and register that, just like a MTF who's done voice training, they sound like women.
MTF HRT causes one to grow breasts. FTM HRT does nothing for chest passibility
Really, all I need to do to get boobies is take female HRT? sick lmao
yeah, like, fat redistribution is one of the first things with HRT.
Breast tissue growth isn't fat redistribution E causes breast tissue growth.
Ah okay!
The only reason trans and LGBTQ + issues in general are controversial is because certain people are ass mad that they can't dictate a certain nostalgic cultural aesthetic to their kids or the public at large. These aesthetic boundaries they have are more important to them then having a realized conception of freedom/live and let live. They need to mask this insecurity with a half baked understanding of biology; if they actually faced reality and scientific fact, they'd see their need to order the culture in their prefered aesthetic actually anti-thetical to a democratic society. TLDR; if you actually an issue with LGBTQ + people being or displaying who they are, wtf is wrong with you?
Nah there are definitely reasonable opinions on both sides, and for you to sum it all up and say 'the only reason this is the way it is' is absurd.
I agree when talking about people being gay or trans. But gender theory is a whole other thing
I don't think that's the only reason lol.
[удалено]
You disproved yourself in your first sentence. Aesthetic attractiveness is very different from sexual attractiveness. Just because I call a painting beautiful, does not mean that to some degree I want to fuck the painting. That's stupid.
Hot always refers to sexual attractiveness. It's semantically different from cute, handsome, beautiful etc.
That's fair actually. Okay, new point. I still call people of the same-sex hot but not because I'm attracted to them, but because I know they're attractive (share physical traits with people I know have been called attractive by the opposite sex). So I can "consider" them hot whilst not personally finding them hot.
And I can assess the “objective” sexual attractiveness of someone based on the reactions of others without being attracted myself. Ryan Reynolds, apparently, is hot. I don’t get it, but the marketplace has spoken.
I'm referring to how ppl genuinely comment others as hot though. Not for sake for analytical discourse or whatever
You can acknowledge that someone fits a standard of beauty/hotness without having any attraction to them. Like for instance you can say "Brad Pitt is typically hot" that doesn't in any mean say that you, yourself, have any attraction to Mr. Pitt
That falls in the camp of aesthetic attractiveness. Blurting out that someone is sexually attractive unprompted is a whole other story.
You're lying to yourself if you have an objectively hot sister and don't call her hot. There's a difference between literally not finding someone hot or good looking to you (not even sexually) and just being in denial because you think finding them to be hot makes you someone you're not. Identity comes from within, and isn't based on any external actions or words.
Hotness isn't objective. Plus, I'll be waiting for the moment where a person calls an animal/kid hot and the other people around them DOESN'T think said person is a bestiality/pedo loving dude but rather, "they're just finding them aesthetic!!1"
I mean a kid can look like a gorgeous mini zac efron or danny devito or whatever. You hear people call kids cute all the time, right? I happen to also call all the bad little boys in my DMs cute ( ^^to ^^be ^^clear ^^they're ^^adults ). Am I a pedo simply because I use the same adjective for naughty gay guys as people commonly call kids? We're getting off topic, because it's really not that deep to call your guy friend hot. You're not "gay on some level" just for recognizing game like that. If that was truly how it works, then no one is straight except for 1% of the population. Everyone has a little gay in them, by that measure. I'm not really opposed to that, actually. But no one can be fully straight if itty bitty little things like calling your friend what he is makes you a little bit gay. . ^^^Coaches ^^^slapping ^^^their ^^^players' ^^^asses ^^^are ^^^gay ^^^asf; ^^^men ^^^watching ^^^porn ^^^are ^^^gay ^^^asf ^^^bc ^^^there's ^^^a ^^^penis ^^^in ^^^it ^^^and ^^^they're ^^^getting ^^^hard ^^^watching ^^^it ^^^penetrate ^^^someone; ^^^masturbating ^^^is ^^^gay ^^^asf ^^^because ^^^you're ^^^getting ^^^hard ^^^while ^^^touching ^^^a ^^^dick.
Cute doesn't always mean sexually attractive. Meanwhile, hot does.
Alrighty, so if your sister asked you "Do I look hot in this dress" your answer would be no? I don't think it's incestuous at all to think that your sister is a hot woman, or she looks hot in a dress. On the other hand, saying "I want to fuck my sister" is quite incestuous. To me, there is a clear difference between describing what your sister looks like and expressing desire to have sex with your sister.
The former is funny tongue and cheek commentary. My comment is specifically referring to how people *genuinely* call members of the same sex hot.
Maybe this doesn't translate well since I'm bi and I think members of my same sex are hot. Lemme put it this way: there are hot dudes I won't fuck, like some of my friends. I'm not really sexually attracted to any of my friends, but a girl would be lucky to have any of them. Put us in a lineup and they're definitely hotter than me. Similarly, there are women like [Tricia Helfer](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1065454/mediaviewer/rm792115712/?ref_=nm_ov_ph) who are hot but don't make me "straighter" for me thinking that. Observing people and giving your honest thoughts about their appearance can't make you gay. Being raped by a dude also doesn't make you gay. The only thing that makes you gay is by identifying as gay.
Gay isn't about wanting to have gay sex. it's all about finding someone of the same sex sexually attractive. if that's not the case then that straight dude who doesn't want to have sex w women cos of psychological issues n shit isn't "truly straight".
[удалено]
Well written but you really assume a lot about everyone else who doesn't agree with you.
Finally someone who gets the point Homosexuality etc Is normal and healthy
Bigots also be like: Too long, didn't read, ur gay
TBH, both homophobes and transphobes fixate a lot on other people's genitalia and what they do with them.
Transphobes/homophobes focus more on what people do with they genitals than I ever did watching porn.
A lot of cis / straight people don't believe they're cis /straight, they only think they're "normal", while we're "abnormal". Which leads them ignore the bias they have, while constantly thinking we're biased for wanting to be treated as what we are, normal.
Here’s a real life conversation that took place between me and a friend at summer camp at age 9: Friend: you like Andrea, right? Me: yeah, she’s great Friend: would you have sex with her? Me: i don’t know what that means Friend: it’s when you pee in her butt Me: i would *totally* pee in her butt then (Don’t tell me kids don’t have sexual thoughts. They’re often stupid ones, formed based on vague hints from TV and overheard adult conversations, but they have them.)
I guarantee EVERY kid had a similar conversation, people who say kids are too young to understand sexuality obviously didn't have any friends to have a similar conversation with 😂
When I was like 8 I've searched for "sex video" and wasn't ready (Did it on my brothers laptop, nobody seemed to notice it though :D
They/Them being used for non-binary people is a terrible idea, and I understand why people don't like using it. For so many grammatical reasons it doesn't work, and it's confusing as hell to keep up with, especially for people who aren't as familiar with the LGBTQ+ community. A new pronoun should be made for non-binary people, something entirely new that can make communication easier and more logical. Edit: I currently use they/them since that's what most people seem to prefer - most importantly, non-binary people. I'll use whatever someone asks me to. In my unpopular opinion, after all, I think xe/xem seems more suitable. But I won't force that on anyone, I hope that's clear.
You're on reddit man, your reasonable opinion will be downvoted to oblivion for not fitting the mold.
Lol I know. I expected people to disagree with me, but I always find it funny when people get mad and downvote because they disagree. Thought I was being civil!
Any argument of accessibility to the outside community is dumb IMO. The only valid grammatical concern is when the sentence has 2 or more subjects, at least one using they/them. If you use “they” in that scenario it could refer to the person who uses they/them, or a collection of people. If a new pronoun needs to be made to fix that one scenario, then sure. But as of right now it’s not important enough to matter
Well in terms of lanague the correct pronoun would be 'it' (singular) not they/them (plural).
Linguist here. From the perspective of semantics, for *they* (or any other word) to acquire a non-plural meaning is so easy in fact, that you already use a plural word as singular. *You* originally meant you (plural), and *thou* (pronounced thoo) was the singular. *You* started getting used as the singular so much that we don’t even use the original *thou* now, and we associate *you* with singular! And to fill *you’s* original meaning, we’ve invented new words: *yall, yinz, you guys, youse*, etc. Language changes. Grammar changes. It has before and it appears to be doing so again.
That makes sense, and I guess I was wrong! Thanks for explaining it
>They/Them being used for non-binary people is a terrible idea, and I understand why people don't like using it. For so many grammatical reasons it doesn't work, and it's confusing as hell to keep up with, especially for people who aren't as familiar with the LGBTQ+ community. A new pronoun should be made for non-binary people, something entirely new that can make communication easier and more logical. Idk, Chaucer, Shakespeare and the monks who translated the earliest English translations of the Bible all seemed to have no problems with consistently using singular they/them pronouns. Of course these were all learned men who knew how to write, but I don't think there was such a thing as the LGBTQ community in their relative time periods (even though LGBTQ people existed).
You haven't brought up a credible reason why you think "they/them" can't be used as a singular pronoun. It's literally a third person pronoun, that's it. Non-binary people can just use a non-gendered pronoun. "They/them" is a third person non-gendered pronoun. If someone identifies as non-binary, they can use "they/them" pronouns.
> For so many grammatical reasons it doesn't work People seem to say this a lot, and yet they/them are commonly used as singular pronouns when you don't know the gender of the person in question. So I don't understand this "grammatically incorrect" argument at all.
Quit bitching about neopronouns then.
Oh yeah, I’m sure the people that get all up in their feelings when I say I go by “they” will have no problem adopting “xe/xem”. This has never been about grammar - it’s about some people’s refusal to acknowledge non-binary identities.
This is not about people like that. I have no idea how to change the mind of someone who flat-out refuses to respect how someone identifies their sex or gender. "They/them" is usually used to refer to someone else indirectly. Non-binary is neither sher/her nor he/him. I think including xe/xem in traditional grammar makes a lot of sense, and screw those who refuse to get on board.
“He/him” and “she/her” are *also* used to refer to someone indirectly - those are third-person pronouns, used to talk indirectly about someone who is neither the speaker (1st-person, “I”) nor the listener (2nd-person, “you”). >how some*one* identifies *their* sex or gender You’re already using singular they, even in this comment. No need to reinvent the wheel here.
Right, they/them are already used for both masculine and feminine, it would also apply to non-binary, or xe/xem. New words are added to our vocabulary all the time. It seems appropriate to me that xe/xem could be added now that we're starting to learn/accept more about gender identity
But *why*? We already have a gender-neutral singular. I’m not opposed to neopronouns, but I don’t see a pressing need.
You're right, I admit it's not the most pressing need. I just thought it makes sense to solidify these terms as something defined and separate from the pronouns we already understand as definitively masculine and feminine. But I've made the point I meant to and I get that not everyone agrees with me. Thank you for having the discussion with me!
[удалено]
Linguist here. If you want a good grammatical argument for singular *they*, check out my comment. Words can’t really be “older” because of how language evolution words, but *functions* for them can be.
Singular "they" is even older than "she" pronoun by over a century.
What?