LGBT+: are we allowed heterodox opinions?

[Steve H]

On a thread in one of my FB groups, on the subject of LGBT+, I wrote

I think LGBT is quite enough. All the rest is made-up nonsense.

It didn't seem too outrageous an opinion to me, but it was deleted by the mods for "asshattery", whatever the hell that is. I'm all for LGBT equality and respect, but some of the more arcane categories, further along the list of initials, are just silly, and I think we need a dose of common sense, and some people need to pull themselves together and drop the fake victim posturing.

[Walter]

On a thread in one of my FB groups, on the subject of LGBT+, I wrote  It didn't seem too outrageous an opinion to me, but it was deleted by the mods for "asshattery", whatever the hell that is. I'm all for LGBT equality and respect, but some of the more arcane categories, further along the list of initials, are just silly, and I think we need a dose of common sense, and some people need to pull themselves together and drop the fake victim posturing.

just pick a set of letters from the alphabet , that'll cover it!

[Outrider]

Definitions move on, cultures change and merge and adapt and grown and recede.  Once upon a time, in different places, anti-Semitic denigrations were acceptable, defining black people as sub-human was the norm, classifying gay people as degenerate was the expectation, the feeble-minded were to be put in institutions out of sight and out of mind, and any suggestion that those responses was unjustifiable would have been met with the same range from confusion to outrage that the transgender, intersex, gender-fluid and agendered are getting these days.

What is our boundary-pushing transgressive stance is the next generation's norm, just as my parents' generation's boundary-pushing transgressives (gay rights activists, say) are my norm, and their parents boundary-pushing transgressives (Suffragists) were their norm.

So long as the trend is towards acceptance of people's differences and accommodation of the variety of human expression, why is there a problem?

O.

[Roses]

So long as other people's differences are not hurting others there is no problem. Paedophiles are very different to the norm and of course their behaviour is completely unacceptable.

[Outrider]

So long as other people's differences are not hurting others there is no problem. Paedophiles are very different to the norm and of course their behaviour is completely unacceptable.

Where the hell did paedophiles come into the equation?  We were talking about the variety of emerging understandings of gender and sexuality expression that are included in the ever-expanding LGBTQI family of initialisms.  Paedophilia is not involved in that in any way.

O.

[Roses]

Where the hell did paedophiles come into the equation?  We were talking about the variety of emerging understandings of gender and sexuality expression that are included in the ever-expanding LGBTQI family of initialisms.  Paedophilia is not involved in that in any way.

O.

The thread as I understand it, is about people who are different to the norm, which paedophiles definitely are. However, not for one second would I suggest that LGBTs are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals, I wish to make that clear.

[wigginhall]

One of the categories is I for intersex, I'm not sure why this is silly.   Intersex people had a tough time, often operated on without consent, it's only recently that they've gained recognition, and better treatment.    How is this made-up?

[Outrider]

The thread as I understand it, is about people who are different to the norm, which paedophiles definitely are. However, not for one second would I suggest that LGBTs are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals, I wish to make that clear.

OK, there might not be any ill-intent there, but think about that leap that you just made for a moment, and the way you've chosen to express it.  In your definition there is 'the norm' (which is presumably meant to constitute straight, cisgendered, but perhaps includes gay people?) - and there is another grouping of non-norms who include transexuals, possibly bisexuals, gender-fluid and paedophiles... why are you putting them in that group?  Why, in the range of sexualities and gender identities are you including paedophiles at all?

As to that classification of 'norm'? What's the normal distribution of human sexualities or gender identities? In what way is being gay not part of the norm?  There are cultures out there who have had variants of transgender classifications as a 'normal' part of their society for hundreds of years.

O.

[Steve H]

One of the categories is I for intersex, I'm not sure why this is silly.   Intersex people had a tough time, often operated on without consent, it's only recently that they've gained recognition, and better treatment.    How is this made-up?

OK, I'll give you intersex, but some of the others (e.g. "pansexual" and "gender-fluid") are a bit daft.

[Outrider]

OK, I'll give you intersex, but some of the others (e.g. "pansexual" and "gender-fluid") are a bit daft.

Are they? Do you appreciate the difference between pansexual and bisexual, for instance?  Why, if transgender identity is 'acceptable' is gender-fluid not?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The thread as I understand it, is about people who are different to the norm, which paedophiles definitely are. However, not for one second would I suggest that LGBTs are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals, I wish to make that clear.

If it is for people who are different from the norm, when are they adding the LR category? 

[Roses]

If it is for people who are different from the norm, when are they adding the LR category? 

In what way am I different from the norm? I await your reply with great interest.

[wigginhall]

OK, I'll give you intersex, but some of the others (e.g. "pansexual" and "gender-fluid") are a bit daft.

I wonder how much experience you have of such people?  I got used to them, working as a therapist, and I don't see them as daft.   Maybe outside your comfort zone?

[Nearly Sane]

In what way am I different from the norm? I await your reply with great interest.

You've self IDed as such many times on this board.

Anyway who wants to be the norm? That's nearly as bad as being  nice.

[Roses]

You've self IDed as such many times on this board.

Anyway who wants to be the norm? That's nearly as bad as being  nice.

True, I still have the mother's day card from our eldest, 'Most mothers are normal, then there is mine'! 

Only I would plaster my dial with dinosaur stickers as spoof makeup.

Oh well as people are amused by my antics, and I can laugh at my silly self that is all to the good I suppose.

[Nearly Sane]

True, I still have the mother's day card from our eldest, 'Most mothers are normal, then there is mine'! 

Only I would plaster my dial with dinosaur stickers as spoof makeup.

Oh well as people are amused by my antics, and I can laugh at my silly self that is all to the good I suppose.

It is a rare talent. Cherish it.

[Roses]

It is a rare talent. Cherish it.

I do, although I have to remember that I am now in my second childhood,  next month instead of being 7 I have to put a 0 on the end of it. I must try to take a little more care and not do anything too crazy, so that I don't end up in the fire of the crem or a nursing home too soon.

[Robbie]

So long as other people's differences are not hurting others there is no problem. Paedophiles are very different to the norm and of course their behaviour is completely unacceptable.

What have paedophiles to do with this? A completely different state of the races.

[Roses]

What have paedophiles to do with this? A completely different state of the races.

Read my posts!

[Outrider]

Read my posts!

I did.  I still don't see the link - it's like suggesting that there are people with four functioning limbs, and then there are a group of people that includes people with out one or more arms, people without one or more legs, people with partially functioning limbs and pickpockets.

O.

[Steve H]

Do you appreciate the difference between pansexual and bisexual, for instance? 

Yes. Bisexuals are attracted to people of either sex,whereas pansexuals are attracted to kitchen implements.

[Robbie]

Read my posts!

I did, very thoroughly!

Yes. Bisexuals are attracted to people of either sex,whereas pansexuals are attracted to kitchen implements.

Well i never knew that  .

[Walter]

Yes. Bisexuals are attracted to people of either sex,whereas pansexuals are attracted to kitchen implements.

Steve H
Ya know sometimes you can be quite amusing 👍

[Steve H]

Steve H
Ya know sometimes you can be quite amusing 👍

Glad you appreciate my wit.

[Aruntraveller]

Yes. Bisexuals are attracted to people of either sex,whereas pansexuals are attracted to kitchen implements.

Droll.

I had to look it up as I wasn't sure what it meant. The definition I found is:

"not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity."

I have only knowingly come across one pansexual person and that was on TV. It was on that height of cerebral programming called "Naked Attraction".

The woman in question was so annoying that I had to buy a new television after I had removed my foot from the screen of my old one.

Ok I exaggerate but she was really irritating. I am, as you know, not prone to make snap judgements  but I was shouting at the screen "you are not pansexual, you are just fucking greedy."