I'm not sure I fully understand thebold, so I'll have to skip that.(Original post by ThomasPassion)
NO. This could not be more wrong. Campaigns must, must, must work for its actual members. Anyone claiming to represent LGBT issues, but not actual LGBT individuals, is a charlatan.
The gay rights movement has never been about being able to have sex - being in the closet is enough for that. It is about enabling people to live complete lives without discrimination or shame.
That's the very aim of my little proposal. There would be no "gay" or "straight people, just people who have "gay" or "straight" relationships. It's basically just making the genders of the two partners involved as inconsequential as their hair colour, or their dress sense, which would do away with discrimination and shame, hopefully.
"Should" according to no authority, I'm just generalising social interactions and tendencies. Your casual sexual encounters, regardless of gender or orientation, generally isn't a topic for discussion with strangers, no?(Original post by ThomasPassion)
'Should' according to what authority? My last boyfriend was gay, and he slept with other men, and I slept with other men and women. We were both completely open about that, except where it would mean discrimination (e.g. his work, my landlord)
I'm using "should" as a soft word than some others, but it seems that it's still been interpreted as a command or a judgement on my part.
In a scholarly essay about the subject? Absolutely. In a live discussion on an anonymous internet forum, I'd disagree. Doing so detract from the real point of the discussion too much. I also tend to find that doing this can also lead to a competition of "who's more qualified to talk about this".(Original post by ThomasPassion)
Actually it's fair that you should be open about what motivates your argument, and acknowledge your biases whatever they are.
I'm free to set my own limits on what I want to reveal about myself. When a request to reveal information about myself is formed as part of an antagonistic attempt at oneupmanship, turns out that those limits are pretty low.
I may have to rethink that analogy, it seems easily misinterpreted.(Original post by ThomasPassion)
Actually I don't act as a straight man (whatever precisely that means) - and I'm certainly not treated like one. The fact that I have sex with men basically means I'm out of the question for a lot of women. Supposedly some bi men get treated differently by gay men and women, although I've never noticed this (maybe because I pass for gay better than straight). Bi girls seem to have a different experience again.
Is it naive to say that the fact that you've had sex with anybody shouldn't make you out of the question for anyone? I think my proposal would help address that.
A rethinking of the usage of those labels would not dissolve the strength of the gay rights movement. People would still be drawn together to campaign for the same issues. What it would do, is remove some of the restrictions between sexualities and make it a great deal harder to target any single group of individuals.(Original post by ThomasPassion)
What you call 'labels' are what allowed a gay rights movement to exist at all. That doesn't mean that we have to create alternative norms of sexuality, but they are useful. I don't use 'bisexual' as a word to describe myself - partly because I'm not in the habit of describing my sexuality at all - partly because I don't think I necessarily have anything in common with other people who call themselves bisexual. But I do have a gay/bisexual/queer identity. Not because I chose one, but because that's how I'm understood by other people and that affects how I live (family, social, and professional life as well as love life).
What you say would make sense if we were all snowflakes and relationships were unmediated connections of souls. But that's not the case. Everything we do is in a gendered context, against a background of normative sexualities. The aim of gay rights is solidarity, not dissolution.
"Not because I chose one, but because that's how I'm understood by other people and that affects how I live"
Wouldn't you prefer it if that weren't the case? If you weren't ThomasPassion the bisexual, but instead just ThomasPassion, somebody who's had relationships or enconuters where the gender of either party is irrelevant?
Once again, I am not telling you what to do. Note that "I think" is not a command phrase. Once again, I am not comfortable revealing the details of my attractions, least of all to you. Can we act like grown ups and lessen the amount of knee jerk antagonism, please?
Bisexuality, and the importance of a public sexual identities. Watch
- Thread Starter
- 23-02-2016 18:37
(Original post by unprinted)
- 23-02-2016 21:43
.. or you could see bisexuality as meaning "attracted to some people who have the same gender as I do and some people who don't".
The bi community has always had a large proportion of trans and 'non-binary gender' people in it, and it would be silly to say bisexuality is limited to two genders.
I'm not saying that bisexuality is fixated on the traditional representations, im simply saying that in the wake of the 21st Century their is a 'third gender'.
(Original post by BefuddledPenguin)
- 23-02-2016 21:49
I'm bisexual, as far as I'm concerned that simply means that I have the potential to find myself being attracted to someone of either sex. That said I find that I have to pretend to be either gay or straight if I want to have a genuine relationship with someone. I only self-identify as bi outside of romantic circumstances, such as when I'm advocating for LGBT rights, but if I'm interested in someone the sad reality is if they know I'm bi before they get to know me they assume either that I'm a slut or I'm just a half-out gay man, which means that women won't want to be with you, as a relationship with a gay man won't end well, and men won't respect you because you are too cowardly to be all the way out of the closet.
The fact is that at the moment we need sexual identities and we need to be unashamed of talking about them, as there is still too much bigotry in the world to shy away from labels. When everyone understands and accepts the variance of human sexuality we can begin to discard labels, but until then they are necessary.
- 23-02-2016 22:19
As a certified bisexual, I refuse to be quiet about my identity. It is important to me and I shall not be shy and keep it to myself. I'm proud of who I am. I would tell anyone I meet I am bi (except for the fact I could get ganked by a homophobe). I'll scream it from the roof tops. I'll get a tattoo saying 'BISEXUAL' on my forehead. I'll stamp it on every item of clothing I own if I wanted to, because I am unabashedly proud of being who I am and I shall not be quiet about it.
Getting rid of all these labels for sexualities just seems like an easy way out, making things simpler for those who cannot be bothered to invest a little bit more effort into acknowledging other's identities, like people who refuse to use the right pronouns for non-binary people (but that's a whole other kettle of fish). I don't want to be labelled as straight or gay because of who I am. I want to be labelled as bisexual because that's who I am, and I will not have my identity taken away.
Furthermore, what about those who don't fit into the boy/girl binary? I am neither male or female, therefore wouldn't be male/male or female/female ("gay" ) or female/male ("straight" ). I understand this might go over your head a little if you're unfamiliar with different genders, so we can skip this topic for now.
People like me, in all minority groups, have fought hard for our identities to be acknowledged. Using the terms straight and gay to describe relationships would be getting rid of that acknowledgement. I, personally, would be incredibly insulted. You cannot take away my identity like that, no thank you.
- 24-02-2016 00:56
No offense but I doubt people actually care who is bi or gay. It becomes a problem when that gay or bi person is literally telling everyone they're x or y or z and just making it into a huge deal .
Umm... labels are meant to make it easier for us all. Gay people usually want to date other gays while straights like to date straights. Bisexuals pretty much go both ways.