|
It's almost as though identity is culturally constructed and, by its very nature, arbitrary. When we ascribe or reject labels and values to these identities we are, in fact, imbuing them with meaning, but at its most logical conclusion they are still arbitrary. We work around the male-female binary because it's easy for most to understand. That binary, as imperfect as any dichotomy, breaks down completely when we introduce identity to the equation and move past the (comparatively) simple biological realities. Sexual identity, along with all identity, is socially constructed. There are certainly biological components to it, but you'd be pretty hard pressed to find any medical, physiological, or psychological professional to lend any weight to an argument that associates physiology with the desire to gently caress someone dressed up in a wolf suit. In many ways some of these sexual categories are simply cases of fetishisation*. We have terms for foot fetishes and S&M because sufficient numbers of people have (to varying degrees) similar emotional and sexual feelings that are ascribed to certain objects or behaviours. As far as I can tell there isn't much in the way of discrimination against these groups because they generally engage in it with each like-minded folks and it is their personal life (though as with pretty much anything, I'm sure some level of discrimination does exist or would if it were more out in the open). If some group came out against people with latex fetishes and began causing them harm or discriminating against them based on their sexual practices, I think it would be a problem worth addressing beyond the occasional fringe academic study. I believe the best way to approach this is practically and from the point of harm reduction. To comparing what the gays went through historically and still do today with SJW battles over signs on a bathroom door that include pansexuals is a loving joke (and a pretty offensive one at that). When someone can prove that there is harm being done to a distinct segment of the population it will become a topic for academics, politicians, and society as a whole to study and consider. Until then we're wasting our time handing out endless labels and making people feel more welcome despite their (often self appointed) "otherness". I think people should have the right to identify however they want and do whatever they enjoy, provided it doesn't infringe upon or harm anyone else (and being offended doesn't count). Beyond that I think it's a pretty trumped up cause that seems like a passing fad that likely won't last very long (are we likely to see Bronies hanging around in significant groups in a generation? how about two? how about 500 years?). Finally, as many have pointed out there simply isn't enough history to warrant the vast majority of these groups being even mentioned in passing when reviewing the what legitimately oppressed groups have experienced. To return to really dumb example, gay people will be around in 500 years; most (if not the vast majority) of these groups, IMO, will absolutely not. tl;dr - Unless it becomes a problem for a statistically significant portion of society these groups and individuals can probably be safely ignored. Otherkin have not and likely will never face a modicum of the challenges the LGBTQ community face daily and have endured for as long as society has been around. Do what you want with consenting, like-minded adults and leave each other alone. *I'd rather avoid getting into a long discussion of fetishisation and the literature behind it, but I think for simplicity sake the comparison isn't stretched too thinly here.
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:So a trans person isn't real unless they've been medically diagnosed? Can people self-diagnose themselves as trans? Can we gas this already?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 06:06
|
|