Taking a step away from the confusion about slavery vs. queer people...
Reviewing some of the thoughts people have had about non-heterosexuals present in published game material, it has struck me how out of date the terms "homosexual" and "homosexuality" are. This is the year 2013 (almost 2014), yet cishets (and maybe non-cishets) are still talking about queer people like they're some sort of strange alien species known only through scientific observations as the elusive Homosexual sapien.
It comes off with the same creepy vibe that I associate to people using the term "female" to describe women. Like, it makes it seem like the speaker has never met a woman, but he will know her when he sees her long mane and distinct glossy nails.
Why do people dodge around the terms people actually use to identify? Why instead are we adopting these pseudo-scientific/objective-sounding terms? It is possible to update our language, and act like we live in the 21st century: part of modern sexuality is the declaration thereof, so let's not avoid the messy business in favor of reductionist heterocentrism.
Basically: What is it that people on Golarion use to identify sexuality, gender, etc?
Do any of the AP's even use the term homosexual/lesbian? It seems that when a same sex relationship is depicted...the participants are just depicted as a couple. We certainly use homosexuality in our discussions on the site, but then it's a general agreed upon term that everyone understands and doesn't have too much stigma attached to it.
I don't really see much an issue with the term female, although to be honest I don't usually use the phrase much with humans, and I don't get a sense it's used more often than woman in discussion. As far as pathfinder is concerned, I would guess they use female/male because it's not human specific, and so you can apply it elves/orcs/dragons/etc without much confusion. Elf man and dragon woman sound weird compared to male elf and female dragon. and dragon woman makes me think of something humanoid, not a silver or red dragon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Taking a step away from the confusion about slavery vs. queer people...
Reviewing some of the thoughts people have had about non-heterosexuals present in published game material, it has struck me how out of date the terms "homosexual" and "homosexuality" are. This is the year 2013 (almost 2014), yet cishets (and maybe non-cishets) are still talking about queer people like they're some sort of strange alien species known only through scientific observations as the elusive Homosexual sapien.
It comes off with the same creepy vibe that I associate to people using the term "female" to describe women. Like, it makes it seem like the speaker has never met a woman, but he will know her when he sees her long mane and distinct glossy nails.
Why do people dodge around the terms people actually use to identify? Why instead are we adopting these pseudo-scientific/objective-sounding terms? It is possible to update our language, and act like we live in the 21st century: part of modern sexuality is the declaration thereof, so let's not avoid the messy business in favor of reductionist heterocentrism.
Basically: What is it that people on Golarion use to identify sexuality, gender, etc?
Do any of the AP's even use the term homosexual/lesbian? It seems that when a same sex relationship is depicted...the participants are just depicted as a couple. We certainly use homosexuality in our discussions on the site, but then it's a general agreed upon term that everyone understands and doesn't have too much stigma attached to it.
I don't really see much an issue with the term female, although to be honest I don't usually use the phrase much with humans, and I don't get a sense it's used more often than woman in discussion. As far as pathfinder is concerned, I would guess they use female/male because it's not human specific, and so you can apply it elves/orcs/dragons/etc without much confusion. Elf man and dragon woman sound weird compared to male elf and female dragon. and dragon...
Rarely do people identify as "homosexual," I might even be willing to go so far to state no one identifies as homosexual. Rather, cishets often label certain people has "homosexual" despite whatever their identity might be (gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc). So it doesn't seem to actually line up with anything intelligible about sexuality. Rather it seems to be a stand in for it.
I totally get that folks here have "generally" agreed to use the term "homosexual," but I don't think that it's something "everyone understands." For example, your use of "homosexual/lesbian" is confusing. Where does this binary come from, and what is the logic that connects these two terms together?
But I am still left wanting for what folks on Golarion use to identify sexuality, gender, etc.
Do any of the AP's even use the term homosexual/lesbian? It seems that when a same sex relationship is depicted...the participants are just depicted as a couple. We certainly use homosexuality in our discussions on the site, but then it's a general agreed upon term that everyone understands and doesn't have too much stigma attached to it.
Read this article (from 2007!). There is stigma to the term. The term "homosexual" is clinical and degrading. People don't self identify as "homosexuals". The term "homosexuality" suffers from the same sorts of problem.
Further, both terms run into issues with erasing the existence of non-monosexual people. By using "homosexuality" to mean same-gender sexual behavior, one erases the existence of people who engage in same-gender sexual behavior but not exclusively. It collapses everyone into the category "homosexual", which means a woman with exclusive attraction to women or a man with exclusive attraction to men.
Sometimes you need a clinical, not particularly exciting term for something. "Homosexual" adequately refers to same-sex pairing (and, indeed, in older literature even refers to social groupings as well as erotic couplings). Some of my actual, preferred terms for who and what I am won't even clear many message board filters. So, yeah. There's that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no, as far as I know (there are two or three of the older APs I haven't read) the APs don't identify anyone as "lesbian" or "gay" or "homosexual." They don't identify orientation at all -- they just identify NPCs' partners, former partners, love interests, etc.
Sometimes you need a clinical, not particularly exciting term for something. "Homosexual" adequately refers to same-sex pairing (and, indeed, in older literature even refers to social groupings as well as erotic couplings).
Except that people have already explained how that word has stigma from its real-world history of usage. So if particular individuals are fine self-labeling their identity or sexuality that way, then that works for them, but it would probably be best (especially for hetero-identified people) not to slap that label on everyone who identifies as non-hetero.
Do any of the AP's even use the term homosexual/lesbian? It seems that when a same sex relationship is depicted...the participants are just depicted as a couple. We certainly use homosexuality in our discussions on the site, but then it's a general agreed upon term that everyone understands and doesn't have too much stigma attached to it.Read this article (from 2007!). There is stigma to the term. The term "homosexual" is clinical and degrading. People don't self identify as "homosexuals". The term "homosexuality" suffers from the same sorts of problem.
Further, both terms run into issues with erasing the existence of non-monosexual people. By using "homosexuality" to mean same-gender sexual behavior, one erases the existence of people who engage in same-gender sexual behavior but not exclusively. It collapses everyone into the category "homosexual", which means a woman with exclusive attraction to women or a man with exclusive attraction to men.
...Taking a step away from the confusion about slavery vs. queer people...
Reviewing some of the thoughts people have had about non-heterosexuals present in published game material, it has struck me how out of date the terms "homosexual" and "homosexuality" are. This is the year 2013 (almost 2014), yet cishets (and maybe non-cishets) are still talking about queer people like they're some sort of strange alien species known only through scientific observations as the elusive Homosexual sapien.
It comes off with the same creepy vibe that I associate to people using the term "female" to describe women. Like, it makes it seem like the speaker has never met a woman, but he will know her when he sees her long mane and distinct glossy nails.
Why do people dodge around the terms people actually use to identify? Why instead are we adopting these pseudo-scientific/objective-sounding terms? It is possible to update our language, and act like we live in the 21st century: part of modern sexuality is the declaration thereof, so let's not avoid the messy business in favor of reductionist heterocentrism.
Basically: What is it that people on Golarion use to identify sexuality, gender, etc?
Do any of the AP's even use the term homosexual/lesbian? It seems that when a same sex relationship is depicted...the participants are just depicted as a couple. We certainly use homosexuality in our discussions on the site, but then it's a general agreed upon term that everyone understands and doesn't have too much stigma attached to it.
I don't really see much an issue with the term female, although to be honest I don't usually use the phrase much with humans, and I don't get a sense it's used more often than woman in discussion. As far as pathfinder is concerned, I would guess they use female/male because it's not human specific, and so you can apply it elves/orcs/dragons/etc without much confusion. Elf man and dragon woman sound weird compared to male elf and
I personally, as a homosexual, do not find the use of the term here degrading. And while in a casual conversation it may be overly-clinical, I think it fits appropriately in many situations including this discussion. I think the problem of the clinical and at times degrading use of the term "homosexual" by certain people will have to be a more natural change as people become more comfortable with non-heterosexual sexualities.
Also, as I noticed some of the arguments here against Paizo's choice to include non cisgendered heterosexual individuals in their setting involved morality saying that their personal opinion should be respected. I disagree because I don't think morality is a nebulous concept. I think it can be defined qualitatively, if not quantitatively, like most things in the universe. I think the purpose of morality is to increase the happiness of each individual to it's maximum without allowing an activity which decreases the happiness of another individual. Since homosexuality doesn't actually affect anyone, I would say that it couldn't be immoral. Any negative feelings toward homosexuality are not a result of morality, but of unfounded prejudice. Obviously, and somewhat ironically, this is just my opinion. I do, however, think that a moral code founded in rationality is much more relevant than a moral code with little or no basis.
Lastly, I am hugely thankful to Paizo for their efforts to include gay male characters. It means a lot to me and I'm sure it means a lot to gay male gamers everywhere. Thanks.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
And while the post is now deleted and the poster likely not to return, I think it should be addressed... if a parent or guardian encounters something your child has read/seen/heard that "disturbs" you -- in this case Kyra and Merisiel's kiss in the Pathfinder comic -- this where they need to step up and parent. Not discussing it/shutting down the conversation doesn't end it for the child, and he or she will seek out those answers from the Internet or classmates/friends or elsewhere. So they should step up and have that talk; give answers that respect the child's intelligence, the innate human dignity of the characters/people, and the type of ethics they wish to instill in their child. Children need honest answers from and to feel they can honestly communicate with their authority figures, so do it, even if the topic makes the parent uncomfortable. Certain age-inappropriate details can be omitted or glossed over, but honesty and approachability are key (children are often surprisingly good at detecting a parent's tells when lying).
I would hope that such conversations also explain that people who have non-hetero relationships aren't evil or even that different than the parent or child... That they have the same capacity to excel and fail, to be heroes and fall, as the rest of humanity. That they are due the same empathy and respect as the rest of humanity. And perhaps most importantly, they are entitled to love and be loved too. Because even if the child grows up 100% straight, they will know friends, family, and strangers who aren't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The person who recently left us had some...opinions...! Among which was the idea, not to put too fine a point on it, that being a homosexual is 'wrong'. That the person being a homosexual is 'wrong' for being a homosexual.
This opinion has many flaws. One of which is that a homosexual is no more 'wrong' for being a homosexual as a cat is 'wrong' for being a cat.
Things exist. People exist. They are not 'wrong' for existing.
And no, as far as I know (there are two or three of the older APs I haven't read) the APs don't identify anyone as "lesbian" or "gay" or "homosexual." They don't identify orientation at all -- they just identify NPCs' partners, former partners, love interests, etc.
So on Golarion, what is it that people use to identify sexuality, gender, etc?
@Malachi Silverclaw
When it has already been brought up that a lot of queer people find the usage of the word "homosexual" as a noun to be degrading, alienating, and offensive, you shouldn't use it. If you were to use the word as only as a self-identification, then that would be fine. However, you are using it as a general term. Respect people's identities and don't refer to them in derogatory ways.
|
|
So on Golarion, what is it that people use to identify sexuality, gender, etc?And no, as far as I know (there are two or three of the older APs I haven't read) the APs don't identify anyone as "lesbian" or "gay" or "homosexual." They don't identify orientation at all -- they just identify NPCs' partners, former partners, love interests, etc.
I'm guessing that part of Golarion's culture hasn't been worked out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know alot of queer people that don't like being called queer, either.
I just refer to them by name.
That seems to work out the best.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Malachi Silverclaw
When it has already been brought up that a lot of queer people find the usage of the word "homosexual" as a noun to be degrading, alienating, and offensive, you shouldn't use it. If you were to use the word as only as a self-identification, then that would be fine. However, you are using it as a general term. Respect people's identities and don't refer to them in derogatory ways.
I'm sorry but Homosexual is a valid scientific term. I'm sorry that you find it offensive, that does not change the fact that is it a valid term to describe someone who is sexually attracted exclusively to people of their own gender. Nothing in this is offensive. There needs to be a line where you can not reasonably expect people to stop using a word. When that usage is derived from strict non-slang usage, you should not be able to expect people to stop using it.
I stopped using the term gay to describe things that were somehow negative or stupid. This was a slang usage. I will not stop using a word in valid context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing that part of Golarion's culture hasn't been worked out.So on Golarion, what is it that people use to identify sexuality, gender, etc?And no, as far as I know (there are two or three of the older APs I haven't read) the APs don't identify anyone as "lesbian" or "gay" or "homosexual." They don't identify orientation at all -- they just identify NPCs' partners, former partners, love interests, etc.
So... in the nearly five and a half years that this thread has been in existence and Paizo has managing to write "lesbian," "gay," "bisexual," and "transgender" characters, no one has bothered to recognize/"make up" any sort of language, social structure, or performances within Golarion that makes the "diversity" of gender and sexuality intelligible?
@Malachi Silverclaw
When it has already been brought up that a lot of queer people find the usage of the word "homosexual" as a noun to be degrading, alienating, and offensive, you shouldn't use it. If you were to use the word as only as a self-identification, then that would be fine. However, you are using it as a general term. Respect people's identities and don't refer to them in derogatory ways.
I'm sorry but Homosexual is a valid scientific term. I'm sorry that you find it offensive, that does not change the fact that is it a valid term to describe someone who is sexually attracted exclusively to people of their own gender. Nothing in this is offensive. There needs to be a line where you can not reasonably expect people to stop using a word. When that usage is derived from strict non-slang usage, you should not be able to expect people to stop using it.
I stopped using the term gay to describe things that were somehow negative or stupid. This was a slang usage. I will not stop using a word in valid context.
Wait, wait, wait... When did "homosexuality" fall so suddenly under the auspices of scientific authority and out of the realm of the social.
|
|
...If you look through history there are plenty of examples of LGBT people. From gay Spartan soldiers to the Hijra of India and numerous other examples in between, LGBT folk have existed in some form or another - although of course not considered in those terms....Not to dispute the spirit of Alice's response, but the Hijra are a modern group of people. Referencing them as an "example" of a "historic" LGBT is kinda... awful. Not to mention the other terrible implications wrapped up in this instance of orientalist thought.
Who is Alice anyways?Scratch that, I don't care. And I don't want to detract from my earlier question.
According to my two minutes of research, Hijra existed in history from before the British occupation of India. Why is it wrong to point out the historic existence of a group that still exists today?
|
|
@Malachi Silverclaw
When it has already been brought up that a lot of queer people find the usage of the word "homosexual" as a noun to be degrading, alienating, and offensive, you shouldn't use it. If you were to use the word as only as a self-identification, then that would be fine. However, you are using it as a general term. Respect people's identities and don't refer to them in derogatory ways.
I'm sorry but Homosexual is a valid scientific term. I'm sorry that you find it offensive, that does not change the fact that is it a valid term to describe someone who is sexually attracted exclusively to people of their own gender. Nothing in this is offensive. There needs to be a line where you can not reasonably expect people to stop using a word. When that usage is derived from strict non-slang usage, you should not be able to expect people to stop using it.
I stopped using the term gay to describe things that were somehow negative or stupid. This was a slang usage. I will not stop using a word in valid context.
Wait, wait, wait... When did "homosexuality" fall so suddenly under the aucipices of scientific authority and out of the realm of the social.
All of life falls under the purview of scientific terminology.
So... in the nearly five and a half years that this thread has been in existence and Paizo has managing to write "lesbian," "gay," "bisexual," and "transgender" characters, no one has bothered to recognize/"make up" any sort of language, social structure, or performances within Golarion that makes the "diversity" of gender and sexuality intelligible?
Maybe they don't feel the need to put themselves in boxes, or feel the need to be identified by their sexuality.
If I were a world iconic hero, I'd rather be "The Hero Kryzbyn, that happens to like dudes" rather than "That Hero That Sleeps with other Dudes, who happens to be named Kryzbyn".In a perfect world, sexuality should be a footnote, not a defineing characteristic, just like skin color.
@Kryzbyn question: what is your sexual identity? I ask because your comments seem to come from the position of someone whose sexuality is the dominant one. It is easy to not have a sexual identity when your sexuality is the default, the norm, when your sexuality is what you are told you are and ought be. Your comments seem to come from a position of ignorance regarding how and why people develop sexual identities and identify in certain ways.
Maybe they don't feel the need to put themselves in boxes, or feel the need to be identified by their sexuality.
If I were a world iconic hero, I'd rather be "The Hero Kryzbyn, that happens to like dudes" rather than "That Hero That Sleeps with other Dudes, who happens to be named Kryzbyn".
In a perfect world, sexuality should be a footnote, not a defineing characteristic, just like skin color.
So... is that what sexuality is to us queer folk: Just a footnote.
And is that what it means to be a non-heterosexual iconic: "That Hero That Sleeps with other Dudes, who happens to be named Kryzbyn".
I revisit my earlier statement: homosexuality is being used as a stand in for sexuality.
I don't use identity for my own good, I use it because it is a necessary part of navigating the social world. It's only cishets who seem to believe that sexual identity is superfluous to a livable life.
All of life falls under the purview of scientific terminology.@Malachi Silverclaw
When it has already been brought up that a lot of queer people find the usage of the word "homosexual" as a noun to be degrading, alienating, and offensive, you shouldn't use it. If you were to use the word as only as a self-identification, then that would be fine. However, you are using it as a general term. Respect people's identities and don't refer to them in derogatory ways.
I'm sorry but Homosexual is a valid scientific term. I'm sorry that you find it offensive, that does not change the fact that is it a valid term to describe someone who is sexually attracted exclusively to people of their own gender. Nothing in this is offensive. There needs to be a line where you can not reasonably expect people to stop using a word. When that usage is derived from strict non-slang usage, you should not be able to expect people to stop using it.
I stopped using the term gay to describe things that were somehow negative or stupid. This was a slang usage. I will not stop using a word in valid context.
Wait, wait, wait... When did "homosexuality" fall so suddenly under the aucipices of scientific authority and out of the realm of the social.
And all scientific terminology falls into the realm of the social. Or, if you will, all scientific knowledge is socially constructed. And this is no less true for scientific knowledge about sexuality and social life.
I fail to understand how it is offensive and I find it ridiculous that someone would be offended by scientific terminology associated with some aspect of themselves.
Then read what people have written about why they don't like to be identified as "homosexuals". I linked to one article upthread. Google can help you find more. Read what people have written until you understand. But don't appeal to your ignorance as a defense.
Until you understand, though, you probably should not call people "homosexuals". It's just basic courtesy to not use terms that are widely considered degrading.
I'm straight, so I guess that completely invalidates my opinion.
So I guess my question in return would be, would you like your sexuality to be a non-big deal like mine, or to further distinguish (seperate but equal!) or define you? Which path leads to the best end result for the minority sexual persuasion society wise?
I don't have all of the answers, I just figured Kyra would rather be known as the heroine that did X rather than the lesbian who amounted to something after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm straight, so I guess that completely invalidates my opinion.
It doesn't invalidate your opinion per se. However, your views on the matter are colored by your straight privilege. This led you to think that everyone experiences sexuality as if their sexuality were dominant. That is not the case.
So I guess my question in return would be, would you like your sexuality to be a non-big deal like mine, or to further distinguish (seperate but equal!) or define you?
Yeah, now you're treading dangerously close to blaming marginalized people for their own marginalization. That's clearly a problematic thing to do.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am blown away by this. Meanings have value. To me deciding that Homosexual is no longer an acceptable term is the same as saying that Apple is no longer an acceptable term. They are words they have meanings, if we deny this simple fact then communication becomes impossible as everyone can just change word meanings.
To be absolutely clear, if a person asked to stop calling them, in specific Homosexual, I would stop. All I am saying is that expecting people to stop using the term Homosexual to describe individuals who are sexually attracted exclusively to their own gender, makes no sense.
I am not "appealing to ignorance" as you so insultingly put it. I am appealing to knowledge and education.
I have the time so I will check out the article.
I'm all ears
Cool. It's widespread opinion among queer folk that they don't like being called "homosexuals". For many, it's not even accurate, let alone something they want to be called. It's degrading, clinical, othering, offensive, etc. So don't do it.
I'm glad you were "all ears" so that we could have this little chat instead of ignoring the issue. It was good to deal with problems directly by pointing out problematic language when it arises, rather than sweeping it under the rug.
I doubt it's the word people take offense to, but rather it's the intent behind the word--the way in which it is spoken--that is offensive.
You should read that article too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm straight, so I guess that completely invalidates my opinion.
Well, you are suffering from straight privilege, and that has had detrimental effects on your opinions about queer folks.
So I guess my question in return would be, would you like your sexuality to be a non-big deal like mine, or to further distinguish (seperate but equal!) or define you? Which path leads to the best end result for the minority sexual persuasion society wise?
Your sexuality is a "non-big deal" already because it is the dominant, privileged form of sexuality. Mine can't be a "non-big deal" until heterosexuality stops being part of a systems that marginalizes queer folks. Honestly, to solve this problem takes a radical reconsideration of a lot of things, most of when I think would be difficult to apprehend in this thread.
Suffice it to say, my request for the what "it" is that Golarians use to identify sexuality wasn't flippant: I wanted use the specific language, structure or performances present on Golarion to inform the discussion of "Homosexuality in Golarion." No one on Golarion seems to use the term "homosexuality," the APs material avoids identities like the plague, and all this diverse talk seems to be lost once one actually turns their eyes to the people occupying Golarion. I am kinda in search of "proof" that homosexuality is in fact present on Golarion.
I wanted to know what people on Golarion use to identity sexuality and gender because that would be important within a discussion about sexual identity in Golarion.
I don't have all of the answers, I just figured Kyra would rather be known as the heroine that did X rather than the lesbian who amounted to something after all.
Why would she prefer this?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are people who find all sorts of words upsetting. My homosexual friends don't seem upset by the word -- we've had any number of conversations on the topic, with more than one of them comfortable with terms I'd not use in public to describe themselves. So it's isn't a universal truth that the term is upsetting to everyone.
That aside, to answer Annabel's question -- maybe they haven't decided on it yet. Or maybe the community that has been puzzling over it for the last however many years could work up a treatment on it and see if the Powers That Be want to publish it, or in Wayfinder or a third party book or whatnot. Heck, I'd love to see any number of things written up, from this to fashions of the various kingdoms to how roads are laid out and more. It probably would get to print a little faster with crowdsourcing as well.
As an aside: If you want people to listen to your views and not be insulting, then don't be insulting. Telling people that they have whatever privilege is insulting. Telling them that they are ignorant is insulting. I'm sure that you (the general you) would not want to be insulted, so don't do it to others. Your relative knowledge on a subject nor your orientation gives you zero rights in that regard -- rude is still rude.
This thread has become incredibly hostile. Derision for the sake of derision, it seems. We agree on 99% of the issues, so why make an enemy of a friend? It's that sort of thing that really hurts the cause.
As an aside: If you want people to listen to your views and not be insulting, then don't be insulting. Telling people that they have whatever privilege is insulting. Telling them that they are ignorant is insulting. I'm sure that you (the general you) would not want to be insulted, so don't do it to others. Your relative knowledge on a subject nor your orientation gives you zero rights in that regard -- rude is still rude.
This.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm straight, so I guess that completely invalidates my opinion.It doesn't invalidate your opinion per se. However, your views on the matter are colored by your straight privilege. This led you to think that everyone experiences sexuality as if their sexuality were dominant. That is not the case.
I am so sick of being told that I have it easy because I am a Straight White Male. What you are saying when you say this is that because I am not wealthy and that I am unhappy with my life a lot of the time, the fact that I was tortured emotionally by bullies in school and I am ever on the outside of social situations I am a Failure at life. If I have everything handed to me I must really be some kind of screw-up to not be successful.
So I guess my question in return would be, would you like your sexuality to be a non-big deal like mine, or to further distinguish (seperate but equal!) or define you?Yeah, now you're treading dangerously close to blaming marginalized people for their own marginalization. That's clearly a problematic thing to do.
I read the article and came away thinking that the author was nuts. They suggest that Homosexual is derogatory because of its clinical scientific nature. Heterosexual is clinical and scientific in nature and yet it is not derogatory? And before ask, yes in general I self identify as Heterosexual as opposed to straight. Straight is a word that has meanings and none of those, that are not slang, have anything to do with sexuality. I rarely use the word Straight where Heterosexual would apply.
Also the author reduced themselves to bullying to get their way by insulting anyone, including people who self-identify as Homosexual, who disagree with them. They used the same tactics that politicians use to cover for the fact that they have almost nothing to back up their argument.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you are suffering from straight privilege, and that has had detrimental effects on your opinions about queer folks.
Pssst, dear Assault Feminist Banner Weaving Comradess (Comradette?). It's me, your friendly 'hood Liberal Democrat. You sure do have some points in the debate, and I sympathize with one or two. But if you want to get anywhere, you need to use that paddle to row, and stop bashing people with it until they bow to your erudite views.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use those Diplomacy checks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you are suffering from straight privilege, and that has had detrimental effects on your opinions about queer folks.
That's incredibly difficult to take seriously.
Your sexuality is a "non-big deal" already because it is the dominant, privileged form of sexuality. Mine can't be a "non-big deal" until heterosexuality stops being part of a systems that marginalizes queer folks. Honestly, to solve this problem takes a radical reconsideration of a lot of things, most of when I think would be difficult to apprehend in this thread.
My sexuality isn't a big deal because it isn't a big deal. I don't think yours is a big deal either. I don't think anyone's is.
I'm much more concerned about how a person treats others than who they want to sleep with.Suffice it to say, my request for the what "it" is that Golarians use to identify sexuality wasn't flippant: I wanted use the specific language, structure or performances present on Golarion to inform the discussion of "Homosexuality in Golarion." No one on Golarion seems to use the term "homosexuality," the APs material avoids identities like the plague, and all this diverse talk seems to be lost once one actually turns their eyes to the people occupying Golarion. I am kinda in search of "proof" that homosexuality is in fact present on Golarion.
I wanted to know what people on Golarion use to identity sexuality and gender because that would be important within a discussion about sexual identity in Golarion.
I'm sorry. I did not take this as flippant. I understand your point.
I just said why I thought they hadn't spent alot of time exploring that.In short, because a person's sexuality isn't (shouldn't be) that big of a deal.
Why would she prefer this?
Why wouldn't she?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Malachi Silverclaw
When it has already been brought up that a lot of queer people find the usage of the word "homosexual" as a noun to be degrading, alienating, and offensive, you shouldn't use it. If you were to use the word as only as a self-identification, then that would be fine. However, you are using it as a general term. Respect people's identities and don't refer to them in derogatory ways.
Please accept my apologies. : )
When I was considering my post, it was my intention to note in parentheses asking to be excused for using the scientific word, because I had just read about the apparent offence it causes. I forgot to include it.
So why did I choose that term anyway?
Well, it was the term used by the person whose opinion just didn't make sense to me, so putting the case in his terms makes it easier to show how absurd it is.
Also, a few months ago in the LGBT community thread, I asked what QUILTBAG stood for (it had been mentioned there), and during the resulting exchange asked what term I should use, naively expecting the answer. Boy, was I wrong! Turns out that every responder had a totally different take on what words were offensive/acceptable, with some pretty diverse and passionate views. I responded to the effect of 'Well if you guys don't know, how the heck do you expect me to know?'
I was advised to use whatever word the person I was talking to wanted me to use. Sound advice. But what word do I use when composing a post to the general community? I certainly don't want to offend, but after the exchange in the other thread I don't think that there is a word that won't offend!
So amongst all the words I could use, 'homosexual' comes across to me as the least offensive, precisely because of its scientific nature.
I'm always happy to be enlightened though; it's why a hetero...er...I mean...cisgendered(?) (it's a minefield!) guy like me went onto that thread anyway!
So, I ask the community, what word should I use?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a mug's game, Malachi. You'll always offend someone, even if you have good intentions.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a gay guy:
I don't find the term homosexual offensive at all. It's a clinical definition of what I'm attracted to, similar to heterosexual. You know what I find degrading? Being treated like I'm made of glass by white knight liberal arts majors. I feel degraded by eupemism treadmills and political correctness forcing us to constantly reinvent words.
I also don't know what the hell queer means. Sometimes I think it means the LGBTQKSHDLKSD umbrella. Other times, it means effeminate heterosexual men and feminists that want so desperately to belong to a minority group, that they try to latch on to my subculture and my fight for marriage equality.
Well, you are suffering from straight privilege, and that has had detrimental effects on your opinions about queer folks.That's incredibly difficult to take seriously.
Perhaps that's an effect of straight privilege. But you'd have to elaborate on why you can't take the claim seriously before I'd beable to divine what you mean.
Your sexuality is a "non-big deal" already because it is the dominant, privileged form of sexuality. Mine can't be a "non-big deal" until heterosexuality stops being part of a systems that marginalizes queer folks. Honestly, to solve this problem takes a radical reconsideration of a lot of things, most of when I think would be difficult to apprehend in this thread.My sexuality isn't a big deal because it isn't a big deal. I don't think yours is a big deal either. I don't think anyone's is.
I'm much more concerned about how a person treats others than who they want to sleep with.
But the fact is that it is a "big deal." That's been the entire point of the past 60 years of queer social formation and activism. Extracting sexuality from all social context doesn't have the magical effect of extracting queer people from the social world which marginalizes them.
For self-identified queer people, sexuality is far more than just "who they want to sleep with." reducing it to that is demeaning, plain and simple.Suffice it to say, my request for the what "it" is that Golarians use to identify sexuality wasn't flippant: I wanted use the specific language, structure or performances present on Golarion to inform the discussion of "Homosexuality in Golarion." No one on Golarion seems to use the term "homosexuality," the APs material avoids identities like the plague, and all this diverse talk seems to be lost once one actually turns their eyes to the people occupying Golarion. I am kinda in search of "proof" that homosexuality is in fact present on Golarion.
I wanted to know what people on Golarion use to identity sexuality and gender because that would be important within a discussion about sexual identity in Golarion.
I'm sorry. I did not take this as flippant. I understand your point.
I just said why I thought they hadn't spent alot of time exploring that.
In short, because a person's sexuality isn't (shouldn't be) that big of a deal.
Crafting baskets it's a big deal... until you want to craft baskets, and then there's text elaborating on that (i.e. crafting checks).
The political climate of Cheliax doesn't matter... until your party is in Cheliax, and then there's text elaborating on that (i.e. the pathfinder companion explains the vocabulary of Chelish social titles).Sexuality is a big deal when you input queer people into you text... but then fail to provide anything to grasp when queer people interact with your work.
Why would she prefer this?Why wouldn't she?
You're the one who asserted she'd prefer to "be known as the heroine that did X, rather than the lesbian who amounted to something after all." I just want to understand why you think that way.
My question now is genuine: What term SHOULD I be using to describe a man who is only attracted to another man, or a woman who is only attracted to another woman? I don't want to offend people, especially when I work in a subfield of science with strong LGBT representation.
generally I have just referred to them as gay or lesbian. I don't generally use homosexual for the same reason I don't use female or male in casual conversation.
Where are folks getting the idea that "homosexuality" is a scientific word? What is the justification for this position?
And what do people think it even means to say "a word" is scientific?
Why do people think that it resolves the problems that Vivianne has brought up: why would being "scientific" ameliorate the problems outlined by Vivianne?