|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is it ok to be Homosexually Agnostic?
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's not really two different kinds of bisexual people, though? That's just how people in general work - some are monogamous, some are not. Not unique to bisexual people, and the idea that bisexual people are more promiscuous than others is deeply harmful.
Additionally, not all bisexual people are attracted to genders in the same proportions. And it's genders, not sexes - intersex people can and do identify as one gender, so many are male or female. You may be thinking of genderqueer or agender people, who are neither male nor female in gender. Thus, I would define my own bisexuality as being attracted to genders that are different and similar to my own (cisgender female), rather than being based on an artificial gender binary. Speaking personally, I am a Kinsey 5, or mostly attracted to the same gender and occasionally attracted to those of different genders. I would still identify as bisexual rather than a lesbian.
I was not thinking in terms of monogamy or polygamy, but in the way in which bisexual people may be able to obtain full satisfaction. I tried to contrast those bisexuals who could quite easily be in a monogamous relationship with a person of either sex, and those for whom monogamy would be difficult as they would still need a sexual relationship with a person of a sex different to that of their partner. Rather different.
And I was not thinking of genderqueer or agender people at all. I had not heard these words before, and having read the Wikipedia articles on them (yes, I know) am no better informed on what they may mean. I suspect that they mean nothing and are just labels thought up in a pop psychology book.
Uh no, genderqueer/agender are real people's actual gender identities. How awful to dismiss that as imaginary.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
Fair point about Google. Having said that part of the reason why I am posting here is in order to "educate myself". I would rather discuss things and learn in that way rather than wait before I have an expert understanding in human sexuality before engaging in any discussion.
quote:
Except that I have no interest in changing your mind.
What is your purpose in posting if you don't want to influence anyone else's opinion?
quote:
It is offensive to suggest that bisexual (and other non-heterosexual) people choose their orientation, period. That is not for you to decide.
As I explained this isn't what I meant when I referred to choice. I wasn't talking about choosing orientation. To be absolutely clear I don't think people do "choose their orientation".
Having said that can you explain why it would be offensive to suggest this? Offensive just because it is factually inaccurate (suggesting a tall person chose to be tall is factually inaccurate but not offensive) or offensive for another reason?
I am not convinced you are correct that people with basically heterosexual orientation can't have "same-gender" sexual relationships. Its relatively common in certain environments (stereotypically prisons and boarding schools and ancient Greece; - but also sexually repressive societies today such as the Pathans in NW Pakistan and Afghanistan).
Why is "different-gender" better than "heterosexual" and "same gender" better than "homosexual". Aren't they just synonyms "hetero" meaning different and "homo" meaning the same?
I'm posting my own views/findings, I don't care if they change your opinion or not.
But what do you mean by 'basically heterosexual'? That's not a thing. You're either heterosexual or you're not. Having some same-gender sexual attraction = not heterosexual, otherwise 'heterosexual' is a meaningless term. It should be pointed out that same-gender sexual encounters without sexual attraction (so sex used as dominance for instance) is not the same as a same-gender relationship and should not be counted as such. They're not relationships, they're power exchanges.
As for same-gender and different-gender v heterosexual and homosexual, surely the difference is obvious by the terms? Sex and gender are not the same. A relationship between a cis woman and a trans woman would be of people of different sexes but the same gender. Also, as I've already said, relationships involving bisexual people are not 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are identities held by people, and relationships are things not people. A relationship can no more be heterosexual or homosexual than a paperclip or a lamp can. Hence, same-gender relationship is much more accurate than homosexual relationship, because it includes all gender and sexual identities.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Also sorry Gee D, I still don't see how what you said is not in terms of monogamy and polyamory (polygamy is not used by polyamorous people as polygamy is associated with religious movements eg the FLDS). Needing a relationship between two different genders at the same time is being polyamorous. How is it not? It's not an inherent part of bisexuality, it's just the case for some bisexual poly people. It's not functionally any different to a straight woman in a relationship with two straight men at once.
The kind of bisexual person who is happy to be in a monogamous relationship with someone of any gender is, uh, the monogamous kind. You know, like the kind of straight person who is happy to be in a monogamous relationship with someone of a different gender is the monogamous kind. Since when were bisexual people a different species?
Would it kill you to listen to an Actual Bisexual here?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And I was not thinking of genderqueer or agender people at all. I had not heard these words before, and having read the Wikipedia articles on them (yes, I know) am no better informed on what they may mean. I suspect that they mean nothing and are just labels thought up in a pop psychology book.
I can understand how someone with little awareness might think this. But think on why you think this. How much of this is your own preconception? I do not mean this in a rude way at all. Just that we tend to travel the path we know more than we realise.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Jade, forgive me, but you appear to be using terms with a level of hair-splitting nuance and fine honing that goes beyond most of the academic stuff I've read on this*, and disallowing common usage and local context. Which on a relatively general purpose discussion board can be a wee bit counter-productive.
I get the points you're making, but they seem overly prescriptive and at odds with the reality of how pretty much everyone I know across the spectrum both self-identifies and self-describes. Even the folk who are well towards one end or other of the bell curve.
"Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" are not 'identities' held by people. The very fact that the words end in -ity ought to give that one away. People may very well identify as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", but that's different to the whole -ity bit.
Also, in common parlance, saying someone is "in a homosexual relationship" is pretty clearly understood. If I'm bi but currently in a relationship with someone who shares my biological sex then, on one level, I am very much currently in a homosexual relationship with that person. I'm not sure chopping it all up as minutely as you have here does anything other than make it all rather opaque and make those who might be considered "fringe allies" throw their hands up with a "FFS!" and wander off without opening their minds further.
*Not a huge amount, but more than the average bear I would suspect
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's not really two different kinds of bisexual people, though? That's just how people in general work - some are monogamous, some are not. Not unique to bisexual people, and the idea that bisexual people are more promiscuous than others is deeply harmful.
I was not thinking in terms of monogamy or polygamy, but in the way in which bisexual people may be able to obtain full satisfaction. I tried to contrast those bisexuals who could quite easily be in a monogamous relationship with a person of either sex, and those for whom monogamy would be difficult as they would still need a sexual relationship with a person of a sex different to that of their partner. Rather different.
I have genuinely never met a bisexual person who requires "satisfaction" from both genders--who feels incomplete in their sexual expression if they do not do the deed with both a woman and a man within the same short time frame, who sees one gender as only half of what they "need" to have access to in order to be happy. I honestly think of that as the naive interpretation we (including self) had of bisexuality before we started meeting real bisexual people and listening to their stories.
I see it as analogous to a straight person who is attracted to both blonde folks and brunette folks. If you're with the one, you might well think the other's pretty, but you don't find the fullness of your sexual expression LACKING because there's only a brunette in your bed.
I know bi people who are polyamorous with both women and men, as I know straight and gay people who have multiple partners of their preferred genders. That's one way to be a sexual human being, and I don't think it's intrinsic to any particular orientation. But most of the bi folks I know are monogamous.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Jade, forgive me, but you appear to be using terms with a level of hair-splitting nuance and fine honing that goes beyond most of the academic stuff I've read on this*, and disallowing common usage and local context. Which on a relatively general purpose discussion board can be a wee bit counter-productive.
I get the points you're making, but they seem overly prescriptive and at odds with the reality of how pretty much everyone I know across the spectrum both self-identifies and self-describes. Even the folk who are well towards one end or other of the bell curve.
"Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" are not 'identities' held by people. The very fact that the words end in -ity ought to give that one away. People may very well identify as "homosexual" and "heterosexual", but that's different to the whole -ity bit.
Also, in common parlance, saying someone is "in a homosexual relationship" is pretty clearly understood. If I'm bi but currently in a relationship with someone who shares my biological sex then, on one level, I am very much currently in a homosexual relationship with that person. I'm not sure chopping it all up as minutely as you have here does anything other than make it all rather opaque and make those who might be considered "fringe allies" throw their hands up with a "FFS!" and wander off without opening their minds further.
*Not a huge amount, but more than the average bear I would suspect
Biological sex or gender?
'Homosexual relationship' or 'heterosexual relationship' are just plain inaccurate terms, and none of the other LGBT people I know use them. So what if they're in common parlance? Furthermore, by assigning an identity to the relationship rather than talking about the identities of the people in that relationship, it contributes to bisexual erasure. Nobody talks about 'bisexual relationships', do they? Why not? My point still remains that 'same-gender' and 'different-gender' is a better alternative since it includes all kinds of sexual and gender variances.
I don't understand what you mean by '-ity' making a difference? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) Homo/hetero/bi refer to types of sexuality. They are identities. Relationships cannot have sexualities any more than rocks or paperclips can.
Also, frankly I don't give a shit what allies think, fringe or not. I don't exist for their convenience.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, frankly I don't give a shit what allies think, fringe or not.
And this is a problematic issue. Why are things better now than they were? IN part because of the Gays in the Gay Rights movement, but also very much because of those outside of it supporting. Regardless of the "real" percentages of sexuality, the numbers of people identifying as LGBT+ is relatively small. The "norms" have always been part of the process.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't exist for their convenience.
No, one does not need to conform to anyone else' expectations, but telling those who have helped to fuck off is wrong as well. I've argued the same in Racism threads, the logic is no different here.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, frankly I don't give a shit what allies think, fringe or not.
And this is a problematic issue. Why are things better now than they were? IN part because of the Gays in the Gay Rights movement, but also very much because of those outside of it supporting. Regardless of the "real" percentages of sexuality, the numbers of people identifying as LGBT+ is relatively small. The "norms" have always been part of the process.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't exist for their convenience.
No, one does not need to conform to anyone else' expectations, but telling those who have helped to fuck off is wrong as well. I've argued the same in Racism threads, the logic is no different here.
Except that queer liberation must be by and for queer people, not allies. It's for allies to listen to us.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Green Mario
Shipmate
# 18090
|
Posted
quote:
Also, frankly I don't give a shit what allies think, fringe or not. I don't exist for their convenience.
The fact that you have huge intrinsic worth and as you rightly say don't exist for other people's convenience doesn't mean that you necessarily can't care about what other people think (whether allies or opponents).
You have said a number of times how offensive various comments are (and I read this to mean you were offended by them not just that you thought other people might find them offensive) but also how you don't care what other people think/have no desire to influence their opinion. This seems contradictory and suggests, like most of us, you do actually care what other people think.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Aren't we all in this together?
Rather my point.
[ 04. September 2014, 04:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Infinite Monkey, thank you for your post. You have nicely dealt with the query I was raising.
But Jade Constable, you have totally missed what I said in my posts. First of all, I totally accept that the people to whom you were referring - but doubt that you do; what you do is apply a label to them as if that is the answer. I don't think it is. so I was not dismissing the people, or their sexual identities, as imaginary. Similarly I found the Wikipedia articles jargon-laden, but failing to explain what the terms mean.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Jade, I'm not entirely sure how to approach this, so please bear with me. (No ChastMastr, again, not that bear).
I should also apologise as this is something of a digression from the main topic.
1) The thing about homosexuality not being an identity is primarily about mangled English usage. Also, for the sake of brevity, please apply an auto-extend to cover bi-, pan- etc. throughout.
A person may identify as [homo]|[hetero]sexual. A person may (arguably, possibly contentiously) have a [homo]|[hetero]sexual identity. A person may very well say that their [homo]|[hetero]sexuality informs their identity, or aspects of their identity. But you simply don't have a [homo]|[hetero]sexuality identity. It's just garbled English.
2) I do actually get the semantic point between your "there's no such thing as a homosexual relationship or heterosexual relationship". The trouble is in the general case and vernacular use, it's bollocks. Of course no-one describes their relationship in those terms: people are just "in relationships" (and of course, in a pure sense we're all "in relationship" with each other in one way or another, but again, in common parlance "in a relationship" is an accepted short-hand for a romantic and/or sexual relationship). That doesn't change the fact that a relationship between two people of the same sex (or gender, depending on how we're cutting this in context) is homosexual, and a relationship between two people of different sexes (or genders) is heterosexual. That just is; it's a valid and accurate description of one aspect of that relationship. It doesn't (or shouldn't) carry with it any additional baggage or pre-suppositions about the nature of that relationship, how it's conducted, what occurs within it. It's not the sole definition or the whole story. But it's a perfectly valid and clearly understood form of words.
It also doesn't dis-enfranchise bi- or pan- folk, as it's a single description of a single relationship in what may be a wider mesh.
Maybe I was reading in haste when tired and mentally overloaded, but this stuff stands as borderline nonsensical/OTT/ridiculous, which I find very strange for someone who is normally so very, very, very, finely precise in her use of terms around this subject, and posts in great depth and generally with great clarity.
Personally I'm also not sure that finely chopping everything is actually that helpful, although I appreciate that context can make a big difference. On the one hand ISTM that the aspiration is for a society where people can be people, whatever they are. Where, as discussed on the "Future of sexuality" thread, people just have a sexuality full stop, and what that is only becomes relevant when looking to negotiate a romantic (or arguably sexual!) relationship.
On the other hand, all of the multiplicity of definitions of different sexualities and sexual/gender identities (be that biological, psychological, emotional, imposed or owned) just creates more and more labels that get applied, then people get sensitive and say "Well, that's not me" so another chop happens and there's a new label and categorisation and ... we all want to be recognised, but we don't want to be labelled. Weird tension. I am [homo]|[hetero]|[bi]|[pan]|[a]|sexual but that is not all of me; it's part of me, but not the whole of me is a frequent and understandable position, but in a weird way, the more labels the more dilute yet also the more foregrounded the whole thing becomes (Although that's a bit of an aside, to be fair).
Which sort of leads in to ...
3) I'm fine that you don't give a fuck what allies think; that's your prerogative. And to be honest, that sentence was dashed off and not really encapsulating what I was trying to get at.
The Ship is great because we have time to formulate our response s (although I usually don't take enough of it, as I tend to do the Ship on the run, which isn't good for this kind of sensitive topic). But it's still a written medium, and tone isn't always easy to convey, and what I write as a jocluar quip someone else might read as a pissy side-swipe etc.
So no, you don't exist for others convenience, and you're under no obligation to educate, enlighten or do anything whatsoever.
But it does seem a shame when someone pops along, apparently with a fairly open, broadly sympathetic mind and asks a reasonably sensitive question to then give them a kicking over their use of terminology. When agitating for equality, acceptance and an end to prejudice, (apparently) getting shitty over terms with someone who's trying to broaden their horizons tends to serve to deepen the trenches rather than the opposite. Which is a pity.
Anyway, this is something of a tangent, and I probably should have kept my fingers away from the keyboard.
Blessed are the cheesemakers, so lets all make some cheese ...
[ 04. September 2014, 11:13: Message edited by: Snags ]
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And I was not thinking of genderqueer or agender people at all. I had not heard these words before, and having read the Wikipedia articles on them (yes, I know) am no better informed on what they may mean. I suspect that they mean nothing and are just labels thought up in a pop psychology book.
Sorry... This just registered. Um, I warmly invite you to say that to my friend, whose agender child was SET ON FIRE by someone who didn't understand what he was looking at and didn't bother to find out.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
That is absolutely horrific, but I can't see the relevance to my post.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The article does give you an example of someone who labels themselves as agender.
Your theory that the term is an imaginary label from a pop psychology book is thus shown to be incorrect. You might also contemplate whether it is rude to claim that labels people use are imaginary.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I see no reason to change what I said, but in turn invite you to contemplate what I in fact said: people are people, not the labels ascribed to them by those who should know better.
And what Snags says as well.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Imagine how silly it is that someone labels themselves a Christian. According to you it's just a label and people are people.
[ 05. September 2014, 20:33: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, being a Christian is a part of me - or at least attempting to be one is. I think you really know that my complaint is of those who invent a label for someone, then use that as the whole being of that person. Anyone for dumb blond stories today?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It is a fundamental courtesy to call people by the unique label they apply to themselves. I do so for Catholics, Christian Scientists and Mormons, even if I don't believe they are respectively catholic, scientific or saints.
The links posted in this thread quote people who apply this agender label to themselves, and you've now said it doesn't matter; it's something some third party invented or it's a stereotype like dumb blonde. Meanwhile you assert your own self label as Christian is significant and meaningful and shouldn't be dismissed as stereotype or fanciful invention.
What's the difference?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I see no reason to change what I said, but in turn invite you to contemplate what I in fact said: people are people, not the labels ascribed to them by those who should know better.
Indeed, people are people. That doesn't mean that they are not also people who have and claim identities, even if those identities differ from the ones we've more or less accepted belong to those in the mainstream. (Nobody is saying that Barack Obama, for example, is a "people" not a man, "despite the 'labels ascribed to him by those who should know better.")
You posited that agender is fully made up and existent only in pop psychology books: I asserted that the lived experience of someone who is both close to me and known/present enough in mainstream media that it's not a question of me just subjectively telling an unverifiable "someone I know" story disproves that. Are you saying that Sasha's label was "ascribed...by those who should know better?" Know better than whom? Than the person who claimed the label for self? Than the parent whose journey has led him to both belief and full acceptance?
I'm genuinely not seeing how there's no relevance to your post here, and I think the "people not labels" is a false dichotomy. The fact is, we people label everything. And my friend's child is one for whom the labels other folks use don't work: for this individual to truly be "people", as you say, it is necessary to accept the possibility, at least, of a "label" that you claim has no meaning outside psychobabble.
My intention here is not to be personally antagonistic, but to engage what's put in front of me and try to understand it. And perhaps this agender discussion is a tangent, but then again, perhaps it's not--where we are right now with respect to trans- and a- identities reminds me a lot of where we used to be with the more commonly recognized ones, and where we still are, sometimes, with bisexuality (it's entirely too strange and thus cannot/does not exist.) To answer the OP, I'm personally cool with agnostic. But when it comes to people hearing the actual lived experiences of real human beings, and then saying that these humans aren't speaking the truth...well, I guess that's atheism, and I can't handle atheist.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It is a fundamental courtesy to call people by the unique label they apply to themselves. I do so for Catholics, Christian Scientists and Mormons, even if I don't believe they are respectively catholic, scientific or saints.
The links posted in this thread quote people who apply this agender label to themselves, and you've now said it doesn't matter; it's something some third party invented or it's a stereotype like dumb blonde. Meanwhile you assert your own self label as Christian is significant and meaningful and shouldn't be dismissed as stereotype or fanciful invention.
What's the difference?
Again, I ask that you read what I said and answer that. You might also consider that such matters as sexuality are innate but that becoming a Christian - or adopting any other form of belief - is a matter of choice.
Infinite Monkey - my pop psychology reference was to the wikipedia articles. What Snags has to say about them is pretty close to my thoughts.
[ 06. September 2014, 05:58: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
For clarification, my discourse was primarily with Jade over specifics on the thread. If it applies more widely, fine, but as the author I claim the privilege of Intentional Fallacy ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I see no reason to change what I said, but in turn invite you to contemplate what I in fact said: people are people, not the labels ascribed to them by those who should know better.
And what Snags says as well.
What you're saying is people are people and not the labels ascribed to them by themselves, since Gee D knows better than them which labels are appropriate truths and which ones aren't allowed to be used to describe them because Gee D knows better.
I fail to be impressed by your argument.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
As you are quite clearly not reading what I have said, but rather what you'd like to think I said, I see no point in trying to have a discussion with you.
But you might read also what Infinite Monkey said. Her answers to my queries have helped develop my thoughts considerably.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As you are quite clearly not reading what I have said, but rather what you'd like to think I said, I see no point in trying to have a discussion with you.
But you might read also what Infinite Monkey said. Her answers to my queries have helped develop my thoughts considerably.
I agree there's not much point in discussion.
As for Infinite Monkey's post I think of it as saying in a gentler and more eloquent fashion the same things I've said earlier in this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Infinite Monkey
You posited that agender is fully made up and existent only in pop psychology books: I asserted that the lived experience of someone who is both close to me and known/present enough in mainstream media that it's not a question of me just subjectively telling an unverifiable "someone I know" story disproves that. Are you saying that Sasha's label was "ascribed...by those who should know better?" Know better than whom? Than the person who claimed the label for self? Than the parent whose journey has led him to both belief and full acceptance?
I'm genuinely not seeing how there's no relevance to your post here, and I think the "people not labels" is a false dichotomy. The fact is, we people label everything. And my friend's child is one for whom the labels other folks use don't work: for this individual to truly be "people", as you say, it is necessary to accept the possibility, at least, of a "label" that you claim has no meaning outside psychobabble.
This. It directly disagrees with your postings. I'm happy it's helped your thought development.
[ 06. September 2014, 19:50: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
