• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I wish sexual orientation and gender identity/expression

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
I wish sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression weren't lumped together.

The "sex or sexes we love" and "the sex or sexes we think we are" are two different things altogether.

Just because I love bacon
doesn't mean I think I'm a pig.

A man who loves another man doesn't necessarily think he's a woman.

A woman who loves another woman doesn't necessarily think she's a man.
 

Sirona

Hindu Wannabe
Who does lump them together? Homosexuality and Transgender are not the same thing.

Although, considering the small group of transsexuals I once used to hang out with, most trans-women sought out women or other trans-women as partners, not men. However, I do not know how representative my experience is.
 

Galateasdream

Active Member
I think there's some lumping together, especially in common chat - after all the T is now part of the LGB - mixing gender indentity with sexuality. And gender/sex does have a connection to sexuality.

However, when people want to talk about sexuality or trans stuff then it's easy to distinguish sexuality from gender.

I'm not sure of the issue being expressed in the OP, to be honest. Is it that when people say they're a woman the others generally expect them to fancy men? If so, that's heteronormativity - and fairly common. Both straights and bisexuals outnumber lesbians.

Or is it that when someone comes out as transgender, a MtF, say, then people assume that they also fancy men - which might be heteronormative thinking, but may also be a conflation of trans with gay. If so, that's a more complex issue, I agree.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
They are lumped together under the LGBT banner, although sexual attraction and gender identity are of course two different things.
There are some feminists and homosexuals who aren't exactly accepting of trans.
 
Last edited:

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
....they aren't "lumped together" either... by anybody. They are different things. Nobody thinks that lesbians are transmen.
I would like "LGBT" to be done away with. This abbreviation is what lumps both categories together.

How about if we were to lump Jews, Italians and people of color all together?

I don't like the term QUEER to be associated with non-heterosexual orientations also. Most humans have a varying degree of attraction to both sexes according to an old survey. Most humans hide any degree of same-sex attraction that they may feel. The QUEER or ODD thing is strict attraction to only one sex.

For non-hetero sexual orientations we could coin: SOOTHE (Sexual Orientations Other Than HEterosexuality), any person with a certain degree of same-sex attraction is now a part of the SOOTHE community.

There could be CIS SOOTHE and TRANS SOOTHE or CIS HET and TRANS HET

HET = heterosexual

For non-cis gender identities and expressions: TRANS

CIS = identifies and expresses oneself as one's true biological sex

TRANS = identifies and expresses oneself as the opposite of one's true biological sex
 
Last edited:

Galateasdream

Active Member
@Jonathan Bailey

I'd be careful with the expression 'true' biological sex.

Personally, I prefer (and think we're heading towards) a hyper-inclusive 'all sexualities and gender identities are fine' understanding. I'd like to see gay pride become 'everything the right side of informed consent' pride - I see no reason for all the gate keeping and quibbling that goes on in LGBT+ communities about who does and doesn't belong etc.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I wish sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression weren't lumped together.

The "sex or sexes we love" and "the sex or sexes we think we are" are two different things altogether.

Just because I love bacon
doesn't mean I think I'm a pig.

A man who loves another man doesn't necessarily think he's a woman.

A woman who loves another woman doesn't necessarily think she's a man.

It's similar cause sexuality affects who people are in relation to others and self. It's an expression of who you are. I'm not sure why some LGB and transgender would seperate the two. I'm sure people identifying as transgender also discover who they are related to sex. We have been LGBTQ all our lives even before we knew sexuality and gender identity.

You have some men and women (transgender) who discover who they are both mind and body and sexuality is part of that.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised that ones gender identity and transition has some effect on ones sexuality. Both gender and sex are interconnected and if one sees them seperate of course they will divide the two. But you don't need to have the same genitals etc you're born with to know that your sexuality and gender corelate.

Cis people don't differentiate the two. Understanding ones mind as transgender also involves the body or no one would need to transition. That's why it's interrlated. Media I guess and stereotypes tend to devaluate sexuality but it's more than who you are attracted to and definitely not a huge foundation of ones sexual activity.

LGBTQ T is part of it because of its history. LGBTQ faught Together for our rights. So, I don't see why not.
 
Last edited:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
I suspect the lumping together comes from old stereotypes of gay men being feminine and lesbians being butch.

Gender roles still play a huge role in both. Notice how girls being together in the media is much more common and "acceptable" than boys? While I am sure some of this stems from male fantasies of two women being together, some of it appears to be from the assumption that it's okay for women to be affectionate with each other but not men.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I don't really know why anyone is even thinking about this. Humans are humans, and that's who I interact with through the course of my day. If I refer to one as a "he" that wants to be referred to as a "she" I'm happy to be corrected, and to oblige. I don't have to think about it any more then that, unless, perhaps, I'm pursuing the possibility of having sexual interaction with them. But that excludes nearly everyone I interact with nearly all the time. So there just isn't any reason for me to worry about any of this.
 

Galateasdream

Active Member
I don't really know why anyone is even thinking about this. Humans are humans, and that's who I interact with through the course of my day. If I refer to one as a "he" that wants to be referred to as a "she" I'm happy to be corrected, and to oblige. I don't have to think about it any more then that, unless, perhaps, I'm pursuing the possibility of having sexual interaction with them. But that excludes nearly everyone I interact with nearly all the time. So there just isn't any reason for me to worry about any of this.

If we are going to stray into the pronoun debate (not that I think the OP was about that, afaik), then I can't resist linking this presentation for consideration:

 

PureX

Veteran Member
If we are going to stray into the pronoun debate (not that I think the OP was about that, afaik), then I can't resist linking this presentation for consideration...
It's not just the pronouns, but who uses what restrooms, wears what clothes, and so on. And again, I have no reason to care. I go into the restroom, do my business, and I leave. The gender assignments and preferences of whomever else might be using the restroom is of no relevance to me, at all.
 

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
I suspect the lumping together comes from old stereotypes of gay men being feminine and lesbians being butch.

Gender roles still play a huge role in both. Notice how girls being together in the media is much more common and "acceptable" than boys? While I am sure some of this stems from male fantasies of two women being together, some of it appears to be from the assumption that it's okay for women to be affectionate with each other but not men.


This is just plain ignorance. I want terminology that ends all confusion regarding the sex of the person we love vs the sex we think we are.

I'm a man who wears male clothes, talks in a deep voice and likes big dogs, burly trucks and sport hunting who just happens to be excited by the penises and testicles of others. A penis is just another fun kind of joystick to play with like the gearshift lever in a sports car or the control stick of a fighter jet. I find it offensive to have my sexuality connected with those who don't know whether they are male or female. Trans people are confused about what sex they are. Trans is a condition of mental illness, I believe. Same-sex attraction was ruled not a mental illness in 1973.

Call me a cis penis lover.
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
I would like "LGBT" to be done away with. This abbreviation is what lumps both categories together.
You've not established why that is a problem beyond you not liking it though. Groupings different things together happens all the time for perfectly reasonable and practical reasons. Do you object to Christians, Buddhists and Satanists being "lumped together" as religions for example?

I think it's perfectly reasonable that if some people what something to represent all of those groups together, they should be free to do so. There also needs to be recognition that they are separate groups too, with their own sub-groups within and, most significantly, made up of unique individuals. I think an obsessive focus on labels, for or against, risks distracting from that vital fact.
 

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
You've not established why that is a problem beyond you not liking it though. Groupings different things together happens all the time for perfectly reasonable and practical reasons. Do you object to Christians, Buddhists and Satanists being "lumped together" as religions for example?

I think it's perfectly reasonable that if some people what something to represent all of those groups together, they should be free to do so. There also needs to be recognition that they are separate groups too, with their own sub-groups within and, most significantly, made up of unique individuals. I think an obsessive focus on labels, for or against, risks distracting from that vital fact.

I think LGBT+ implies persons with any degree of same-sex attraction are freaks of nature like trans people are. I find the T part of this term repulsive. For that reason Catholics and Protestants wouldn't want to be put in the same melting pot as Jim Jones, Branch Davidians, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Moonies.
 

Jonathan Bailey

Well-Known Member
I suspect the lumping together comes from old stereotypes of gay men being feminine and lesbians being butch.

Gender roles still play a huge role in both. Notice how girls being together in the media is much more common and "acceptable" than boys? While I am sure some of this stems from male fantasies of two women being together, some of it appears to be from the assumption that it's okay for women to be affectionate with each other but not men.

Isolating the male sex from affection within their sex is making men and boys out to be less human. It seems like a men's insecurity issue. It's not uncommon for two brothers to hug one another after having been away from one another for a long time. When a group of guys goes hunting or fishing, it's quite a male bonding occasion.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
This is just plain ignorance. I want terminology that ends all confusion regarding the sex of the person we love vs the sex we think we are.
We are humans, and humans are confused about a great many things. It's a major aspect of the human condition. I think you need to just accept this.
I'm a man who wears male clothes, talks in a deep voice and likes big dogs, burly trucks and sport hunting who just happens to be excited by the penises and testicles of others. A penis is just another fun kind of joystick to play with like the gearshift lever in a sports car or the control stick of a fighter jet. I find it offensive to have my sexuality connected with those who don't know whether they are male or female. Trans people are confused about what sex they are. Trans is a condition of mental illness, I believe. Same-sex attraction was ruled not a mental illness in 1973.

Call me a cis penis lover.
What you believe about other people is pretty irrelevant, though, except to your own ego. People are what they are, and that includes their being confused. They don't exist to accommodate your intellectual or emotional peccadillos.
 
Last edited:

Galateasdream

Active Member
I think LGBT+ implies persons with any degree of same-sex attraction are freaks of nature like trans people are. I find the T part of this term repulsive. For that reason Catholics and Protestants wouldn't want to be put in the same melting pot as Jim Jones, Branch Davidians, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Moonies.

You are calling trans people freaks of nature. Ok?

I wonder how this all ties into beards ...

Anyway, these short videos might help you understand why transgenderism isn't as freaky you seem to think:


 
Top