Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Bel Shazar
Sep 14, 2012

some plague rats posted:

Hm. Not sure about this at all. No one is ever going to experience societal oppression for being sapiosexual. No US state is passing laws against mixed-IQ marriage. No one is getting yelled at and beaten on the street for being a smart-fucker. No one is refusing to date anyone who likes the big bang theory. This just doesn't line up

Seems like someone who meant that would just use pan? I know technicalities are fun but usage determines meaning and in the wild I've literally only seen "sapiosexual" used to mean "hetero, but condescending and snobbish about it"

The thing is, you don't get to dictate how someone defines themself. You can claim some disconnect between what they say and how they present, though I can't currently imagine a scenario where that isn't rude as hell, but their identity is a fact you just have to acknowledge.

e. Not specifically you, you. 3rd person you

Bel Shazar fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Apr 14, 2022

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bel Shazar
Sep 14, 2012

some plague rats posted:

I'm not trying to "dictate how someone defines themself"!!! I'm not saying nobody can call themselves sapiosexual, that's fine, I don't give a poo poo! My point is they're not LGBT and making them part of the movement is counter-productive because they have no actual, material demands for recognition or equality so they're just along for the ride and history has shown people with no personal stake to be unreliable at best allies!

This is not about gatekeeping! Stop rephrasing my point to be about saying people can't call themselves whatever, it's really annoying!

Deepest apologies, I read your prior posts quite differently.

Bel Shazar
Sep 14, 2012

Jaxyon posted:

That's not much of an apology.

You didn't see the intricate interpretive dance that went along with the words.

Bel Shazar
Sep 14, 2012

OwlFancier posted:

Oh sure I know jealousy and infidelity are issues everyone can have, it's just specifically the idea that if you're bisexual you can never really be happy without access to all possible sets of genitalia that is a strange thing to leap to. As if the mechanism of the sex you have is the defining feature of your being.

I agree there is probably a link there with the bizzare obsession that conservatives have with the mechanism of gay sex though. And possibly the mechanism of transitioning too. Generally far too obsessed with other people's bodily functions IMO, very little interest in their thoughts or feelings.

You mean you aren't obligate polyamorous?

I just assume anyone who comes at me with that is thinking how they would cheat if the opportunity came up.

Bel Shazar
Sep 14, 2012

Mrenda posted:

When society is doing everything to commericialise itself, to almost make you pay for recognition as a living, valuable entity it's difficult for people who are not already valued as members on the pure human level to pay the extra human cost as well as the pure financial.

Thank you for the whole post, but particularly this section. I'm about to move and have been thinking hard about how I might plug in to my new area, particularly as an ally. I think I can be in a position to help cover both of those costs.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bel Shazar
Sep 14, 2012

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Is generally lovely foreign policy transphobic because there are trans people in the global south? As far as I'm aware it's just generally bad, but isn't specifically targeting queer people.

Was there something in how Libya was handled that targeted queer people specifically?

If a politician is good for domestic queer people but targeting those abroad I completely agree, I'm just not aware that this is the case. I don't *think* US foreign policy while Clinton was SoS specifically targeted queer people, but I'm open to being wrong

I believe the argument is that being a piece of poo poo towards the global south leads to larger net negative impacts to trans persons in general when compared to whatever marginally decent thing someone might do at home.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply