why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you've got a better name for what I am (perhaps some male equivalent to "extreme tomboy"), I'm all ears.

Yeah, heterosexual man. There's no reason to call yourself a "lesbian" because you're not a woman. You seem to be implying that it's less manly/masculine or straight for a man to be emphatic with women or prefer female company. By doing that, it's upholding a stereotype.

 

[One God]

I also regard Nature as being far more than those three broad concepts.

Interesting. Would you kindly explain on above? Thanks

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah, heterosexual man. There's no reason to call yourself a "lesbian" because you're not a woman. You seem to be implying that it's less manly/masculine or straight for a man to be emphatic with women or prefer female company. By doing that, it's upholding a stereotype.

Hmm... you know, I hadn't considered that, even though I never intended such an implication.

It's more than just empathy and social preference in my case; a lot of behaviors and desires that I've observed in myself made me apply that label. But it's only a few months old, and it started as a half-joke, so I'm not so attached to it that discarding it would be terribly painful.

I'll give it some thought, but "heterosexual man" just doesn't feel accurate.

 

[Riverwolf]

Interesting. Would you kindly explain on above? Thanks

Those broad concepts are incredibly generic, and capable of meaning just about anything, and even being interchangeable.

Creation can cause destruction; destruction preserves another; preservation allows creation; etc.

That's not to say that they're wrong, or that there's other, equally broad and generic concepts being ignored. But describing all of Nature like that is not terribly useful, since one form of creation is not like unto another. (The various implications and connotations that existed in the original Sanskrit words might have been enough, but not in the English words).

Besides, Death is not Destruction. Destruction is something being removed from existence altogether; what dies becomes Life.

...it's incredibly hard to articulate what I'm talking about when I just woke up and haven't had caffeine, yet.

 

[Drolefille]

Gender identity is a 3D scale, extending beyond one's genitals.

Of course it extends past genitals.
But you haven't been saying you're a woman unless I missed that somewhere.

That's a psychological phenomenon common in ethnically homogenous areas.



Didn't see this post when I made my above post.

I don't take a single word back. It's a personal sexual identity/orientation, that I came up with on my own a few months ago, well into my 7-and-a-half year ongoing and committed relationship with Moonwater. I had no idea that there was a history of men identifying as "lesbians" for one reason or another.

But for now, I stick to the name I've given myself. If female lesbians who've never once been threatened or harassed can use the term despite the atrocities committed on others, then so can I.

If you've got a better name for what I am (perhaps some male equivalent to "extreme tomboy"), I'm all ears.

Here's the deal, lesbians are always at risk for that sort of violence simply by being who they are. You are not. Even though not every lesbian is assaulted, thank goodness, what you're doing is the equivalent of saying "I'm a black person on the inside" while facing none of the problems of being black, nor really having a complete understanding of what it is to BE black.

You relate to women well, that's awesome. You're a sensitive guy and that's cool. There's nothing non-masculine about that nor is there anything inherently lesbian about it either. There are lesbians who have primarily male friends and who are not into that "touchy feely" crap. Just like there are dudes who are emotional, sensitive and completely hetero.

There's nothing wrong with being the latter but claiming a label that isn't yours, simply cannot be yours by the nature of your gender identity, is presumptuous. Additionally as noted, it's often used in a very dudebro sort of way, and you'll probably be misunderstood if you use it.

Hmm... you know, I hadn't considered that, even though I never intended such an implication.

It's more than just empathy and social preference in my case; a lot of behaviors and desires that I've observed in myself made me apply that label. But it's only a few months old, and it started as a half-joke, so I'm not so attached to it that discarding it would be terribly painful.

I'll give it some thought, but "heterosexual man" just doesn't feel accurate.

You may be a more "feminine" man and that's cool too.
The Genderbread Person v2.0: a helpful visual aid for explaining gender (again)

But if you wouldn't call yourself a woman, then you shouldn't call yourself a lesbian.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

I'm not, so it'd be a problem for me. I mean not you having sex with others of your gender. Me having sex with my own gender... icky-poo.

I don't care what you do as long as your are not forcing someone into a relationship they don't want.

Personally I suspect the bi-sexuals are the only sane group.

 

[Riverwolf]

Of course it extends past genitals.
But you haven't been saying you're a woman unless I missed that somewhere.

Any time there's the choice to pick "male or female" in a video game, 99% of the time, I pick female.

I know that doesn't count as actually being a woman with a penis, because I don't identify as a woman in real life, but I do believe it's noteworthy.

Here's the deal, lesbians are always at risk for that sort of violence simply by being who they are. You are not. Even though not every lesbian is assaulted, thank goodness, what you're doing is the equivalent of saying "I'm a black person on the inside" while facing none of the problems of being black, nor really having a complete understanding of what it is to BE black.

To be honest, I cannot buy into that kind of thinking; it implies the necessity for some kind of initiation before being able to apply a label to oneself. This is especially true because those kinds of crimes are things we're trying to stop; should lesbians or ...blacks(I hate using that term, tbh) in the future not apply the terms to themselves because they don't have to deal with the potential problems their ancestors did?

In my mind, it turns being lesbian from a simple sexual orientation into a tribe.

On the other hand, despite being somewhat of an American Otaku and having a great amount of respect and love for Japanese culture, in some cases over my own, I've always recognized that I'm not Japanese, ethnically or culturally. (Though the full extent of what that means didn't hit me until recently... and it's why I always preface my identity as an "Otaku" with "American".)

So, as I've just realized now, I can also understand how my use of the term can also make it look like a tribe.

You relate to women well, that's awesome. You're a sensitive guy and that's cool. There's nothing non-masculine about that nor is there anything inherently lesbian about it either. There are lesbians who have primarily male friends and who are not into that "touchy feely" crap. Just like there are dudes who are emotional, sensitive and completely hetero.

There's nothing wrong with being the latter but claiming a label that isn't yours, simply cannot be yours by the nature of your gender identity, is presumptuous. Additionally as noted, it's often used in a very dudebro sort of way, and you'll probably be misunderstood if you use it.

Those, however, make sense, and so I will consider them.

You may be a more "feminine" man and that's cool too.
The Genderbread Person v2.0: a helpful visual aid for explaining gender (again)

But if you wouldn't call yourself a woman, then you shouldn't call yourself a lesbian.

Like I said, I'll give it some thought.

Thanks for the link. If nothing else, it'll be helpful to me since I'm developing a nongame all about identity, and this issue is part of it. (Funny thing to note: in my notes for building the game's prototype, I came up with, on my own, the same four aspects of gender and sexuality that this picture lists.)

The thing is, I do wonder if the socially preferred gender is regarded as a factor in one's gender identity, which is one of the flash-thoughts that inspired me to apply the label to myself in the first place.

 

[columbus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but after the theory of aids coming from chimps in Africa, it was first seen in homo men. Are you saying that is wrong?

Yes. Utterly and completely wrong.

The first time it was diagnosed as an unknown illness was when a European nun died after working in a clinic in Africa. The first time Western Christians noticed was when gay USonians got it. That doesn't make it a gay disease.

It is a heterosexual blood born illness marching in step with Christianity across Africa. No doubt the Qur'an predicted this.

HIV could be brought under control by some simple techniques. Too bad the religionists who run the world are more interested in maintaining their own control.

Tom

 

[Drolefille]

Any time there's the choice to pick "male or female" in a video game, 99% of the time, I pick female.

I know that doesn't count as actually being a woman with a penis, because I don't identify as a woman in real life, but I do believe it's noteworthy.

I know some guys who do this for completely opposite reasons - they want to look at the woman's butt for the entire game. And boobs. I know that's not why you do it, but it relates to the fact that your intent may not be clear by your actions.

To be honest, I cannot buy into that kind of thinking; it implies the necessity for some kind of initiation before being able to apply a label to oneself. This is especially true because those kinds of crimes are things we're trying to stop; should lesbians or ...blacks(I hate using that term, tbh) in the future not apply the terms to themselves because they don't have to deal with the potential problems their ancestors did?


In my mind, it turns being lesbian from a simple sexual orientation into a tribe.

It kind of is a tribe. Or perhaps culture or subculture would be a better term. There are some things about being a lesbian right now that are pretty common if not universal other than the being a woman who digs women thing.

But think of it like this, black people in America today don't face the same struggles their ancestors did as slaves, but they still face struggles because of their skin color.

I do think that as discrimination and oppression disappears, labels become less important. Few people are really attached to their identity as a blond or brunette. And having Italian or Irish heritage in America is no longer as negative as it once was and while there's still some cultural attachments it lessens as time goes on.

Those, however, make sense, and so I will consider them.

Like I said, I'll give it some thought.

Cool, that's all I ask.

Thanks for the link. If nothing else, it'll be helpful to me since I'm developing a nongame all about identity, and this issue is part of it. (Funny thing to note: in my notes for building the game's prototype, I came up with, on my own, the same four aspects of gender and sexuality that this picture lists.)

I think there's a version 3.0 but I can't find it easily.

 

[Riverwolf]

I know some guys who do this for completely opposite reasons - they want to look at the woman's butt for the entire game. And boobs. I know that's not why you do it, but it relates to the fact that your intent may not be clear by your actions.

But in this case, I'm not stopping. ^_^

But the behavior you describe is one I have seen.

It kind of is a tribe. Or perhaps culture or subculture would be a better term. There are some things about being a lesbian right now that are pretty common if not universal other than the being a woman who digs women thing.

But think of it like this, black people in America today don't face the same struggles their ancestors did as slaves, but they still face struggles because of their skin color.

I do think that as discrimination and oppression disappears, labels become less important. Few people are really attached to their identity as a blond or brunette. And having Italian or Irish heritage in America is no longer as negative as it once was and while there's still some cultural attachments it lessens as time goes on.

I think having a subculture is fine, since in this time of oppression it can allow these people a community to be a part of. My problem is with the thinking that someone must have personally experienced all the problems that most people in that subculture have before using a label that refers to something determined at birth. Then it becomes a tribe, or at least a members-only club, and that's not okay in my book.

It's a lot clearer with ethnicity than with sexual orientation, since ethnicity isn't just determined at birth, it's also determined by parents, and typically indicated by outward appearance.

But, then, suppose two people of fully African descent give birth to a child with light skin. (Yes, that does happen sometimes.) Is the child black?

 

[Drolefille]

I think having a subculture is fine, since in this time of oppression it can allow these people a community to be a part of. My problem is with the thinking that someone must have personally experienced all the problems that most people in that subculture have before using a label that refers to something determined at birth. Then it becomes a tribe, or at least a members-only club, and that's not okay in my book.

No, there are lesbians who are never victims of assault - although I can't speak to whether there are some never harassed at all, lets suppose there are. They're still at the same risk for oppression by being who they are. The oppression isn't the criteria for membership, it's the reason that taking the label is particularly offensive. Like otherwise it's just "No dude you're not" vs. "No and you don't have a right to that." Or the difference between getting a side-eye or a butt kicking to some people.

Like lets say you wanted to take the label "trans" for some reason or another. But you're really "cis." It's like you want some sort of benefit (joining the tribe) without any of the negatives (risk of being beaten, killed, fired, raped, arrested for being in the wrong bathroom, arrested for suspicion of being a prostitute.) And that rubs the people who have the label wrong, because it's not that they want all the negatives, it's that they can't get rid of them even if they picked another name for themselves. Calling themselves "Spoo" people would make them no less vulnerable to those negatives.

But, then, suppose two people of fully African descent give birth to a child with light skin. (Yes, that does happen sometimes.) Is the child black?

Depends, doesn't it? There are certainly some grey areas. There was a story on NPR talking about a bi/multi racial family where one sister identified as white and the other sister and mother identified as black. There's a lot about passing privilege and other cultural stuff wrapped up into it.

And i could see if a lesbian woman realized she was actually a trans man that he perhaps would hold to the lesbian label in a way that isn't really appropriation even if it isn't entirely appropriate anymore.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, there are lesbians who are never victims of assault - although I can't speak to whether there are some never harassed at all, lets suppose there are. They're still at the same risk for oppression by being who they are. The oppression isn't the criteria for membership, it's the reason that taking the label is particularly offensive. Like otherwise it's just "No dude you're not" vs. "No and you don't have a right to that." Or the difference between getting a side-eye or a butt kicking to some people.

Like lets say you wanted to take the label "trans" for some reason or another. But you're really "cis." It's like you want some sort of benefit (joining the tribe) without any of the negatives (risk of being beaten, killed, fired, raped, arrested for being in the wrong bathroom, arrested for suspicion of being a prostitute.) And that rubs the people who have the label wrong, because it's not that they want all the negatives, it's that they can't get rid of them even if they picked another name for themselves. Calling themselves "Spoo" people would make them no less vulnerable to those negatives.

I understand the sentiment, because it can feel like devaluing the label, but it's just not one I can get behind. In addition to the reasons I gave, perhaps it reminds me too much of the whole "fake geek girl" thing that recently started plaguing geek culture.

And it's not like I'm unsympathetic to the sentiment, since I, myself, have been harassed for various things I have no control over. Not anywhere near to the same extent or severity, mind you, but still harassed.

Perhaps it's also that I think a sexual orientation label should be independent of its cultural negative baggage. Largely because I just can't see the terms going away once the oppression no longer exists, as it does with ethnicity. While the two aren't apples and oranges, they are different types of apples.

Depends, doesn't it? There are certainly some grey areas. There was a story on NPR talking about a bi/multi racial family where one sister identified as white and the other sister and mother identified as black. There's a lot about passing privilege and other cultural stuff wrapped up into it.

And i could see if a lesbian woman realized she was actually a trans man that he perhaps would hold to the lesbian label in a way that isn't really appropriation even if it isn't entirely appropriate anymore.

It's really not so black and white as "definitely in OR definitely out", since this whole thing is a scale. While there is definitely a point where a given label is absolutely inappropriate, anything teetering that point can be incredibly tricky.

 

[Drolefille]

I understand the sentiment, because it can feel like devaluing the label, but it's just not one I can get behind. In addition to the reasons I gave, perhaps it reminds me too much of the whole "fake geek girl" thing that recently started plaguing geek culture.

And it's not like I'm unsympathetic to the sentiment, since I, myself, have been harassed for various things I have no control over. Not anywhere near to the same extent or severity, mind you, but still harassed.

Perhaps it's also that I think a sexual orientation label should be independent of its cultural negative baggage. Largely because I just can't see the terms going away once the oppression no longer exists, as it does with ethnicity. While the two aren't apples and oranges, they are different types of apples.

The terms don't go away, the strength of the identity as a label or a culture declines, but not the terms. I'm still an Italian American, I'm just not considered "non-white" and so I don't feel the need to strongly identify as Italian outside of some rare cultural contexts. Being a woman still has oppression attached to it, so yeah it's a big deal to me if men come into women spaces or appropriate women's labels. (note, trans women are not doing this. TERFs think so, but I strongly disagree with most radfems anyway.)

It's really not so black and white as "definitely in OR definitely out", since this whole thing is a scale. While there is definitely a point where a given label is absolutely inappropriate, anything teetering that point can be incredibly tricky.[/QUOTE]

To me, and to many queer women - particularly lesbians - having a male claim to be a lesbian is quite a ways off the scale. And that is only worsened by the connotations it has as a sleazy attempt to hit on lesbians (or just women in general.)

 

[Riverwolf]

The terms don't go away, the strength of the identity as a label or a culture declines, but not the terms. I'm still an Italian American, I'm just not considered "non-white" and so I don't feel the need to strongly identify as Italian outside of some rare cultural contexts. Being a woman still has oppression attached to it, so yeah it's a big deal to me if men come into women spaces or appropriate women's labels. (note, trans women are not doing this. TERFs think so, but I strongly disagree with most radfems anyway.)

Fair enough, I myself identify fairly strongly with my Northern European ancestry, but most people in the US don't give a lot of thought to their ancestries.

To me, and to many queer women - particularly lesbians - having a male claim to be a lesbian is quite a ways off the scale. And that is only worsened by the connotations it has as a sleazy attempt to hit on lesbians (or just women in general.)

I'm a pretty unique case, I think, but I'll still keep that in mind.

 

[Tiberius]

really, great, where? Oh right, your an atheist. End of conversation.

Post 2188.

 

[Tiberius]

This implies that you want to have lady parts instead of the male one. I am pretty sure you do not want to give it up. :sarcastic

Actually, sometimes I wouldn't mind. I'm quite in touch with my feminine side...

 

[Tiberius]

How is this different from being an excruciatingly PC straight guy?

Tom

A lesbian is emotionally female, not male.

Women are not just men with vaginas and boobs.

 

[Tiberius]

Robert Evans, let me ask you this...

If activity X increases the likelihood of a person being harmed, should Activity X be banned?

 

[Sundance]

I as a Unitarian Universalist really encourage same-sex relationships and marriages. So, that's just one perspective!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually, sometimes I wouldn't mind. I'm quite in touch with my feminine side...

No, you would not want to be a transsexual. It's extremely painful and difficult to deal with.