 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Femine's Corner. |
| User | Post |
| Jomb Posts: 216/448 |
Kasumi - I'm glad i'm not offending you, because that was never my purpose  I still dont see how anyone could possibly fit outside the 4 possible sexualities though. I'm not trying to simulate people, i only used the booleans as a way to explain why i dont see how anyone could not fit, at least generally (which is good enough for my purposes), into one of the 4 catagories. I understand and agree that there are nearly infinite shades and ways that people get to their sexuality, but still dont see how any of that makes a difference in what catagory they'd fit into. I know my sexuality fits quite nicely into one of those 4 catagories and so far everyone i've ever known or heard about does to.
Tarale - If you know a sexuality which would not be a type of either Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, or Asexual, please share!  |
| Ziff Posts: 1083/1800 |
Originally posted by Skydude Moral relativism? |
| Skydude Posts: 2406/2607 |
Originally posted by Dracoon That's complete misunderstanding of everything I've ever said on the topic, and quite hostile to boot. You're proving my point once again that because you have this preconceived notion of how I am, everything I say must really have these hidden meanings. You prove the "code words" thing again and again. If that's what "morality" means to you, then you need to go get a dictionary, because you're just wrong. I really don't know how else to put it. As for Ziff's earlier comment...if you weren't addressing me, as you claim not to have been...then why were you very specifically addressing me, as you were? Originally posted by Dracoon I don't see how that proves anything aside from the fact that you didn't understand a single word I said. |
| Kasumi-Astra Posts: 110/258 |
I used the guessing game analogy to convey how riduculous pigeon-holing is. People like labeling people, but 99% of the time they turn out to be wrong when they get to know each-other. You can use homosexual or bisexual to describe me, but neither one would be correct in entirety. Let me give you an example.
Legally in the UK, I can ammend my birth certificate to reflect my new gender after living as a woman for two full years. I would be legally a woman. Yet, if I married my girlfriend before I ammended my birth certificate, I would be legally required to null the marriage when I did get it ammeded. UK law will consider us as a same-sex relationship for which there is no marital law for. Yet, if I didn't get my birth certificate ammended, we would legally be allowed to marry whenever I wanted. In this case, homosexuality is defined by an M or an F on a piece of paper. Silly, isn't it? I'm not offended by this debate, in all honesty I enjoy talking about the subject. Most people walk away knowing a bit more about me, who I am and a little more about gender and sex. Some people come away with questions about themselves, and find out a little more about who they are. I got annoyed at the boolean arguement partially because I'm a software engineer, and I know how complex gender, sexual orientation and sex is. You can use a boolean expression as a survey, but it depends how much abstraction you are using to represent the model. If you want to fully simulate a model, you need far more attributes than two boolean data types. Hell, we've only aquired enough supercomputing power to simulate a single celled lifeform, how much do you think it would take to faithfully simulate a human being? My attitude towards this is mostly a bit of fun- saying a few things to stir things up and see what happens. It's a touchy subject but you'd honestly have to be pretty ignorant to offend me. And this is one of the more enlightened boards on the net (try the WoW forums back in February when the GLBT issue took flight). So, you'd be accurate to call me female, homosexual and transgendered, but if you want to talk about gender and sex, it goes a whole lot deeper than that. Discussing gender is probably the only case that I ever bring this up, because in all other subjects the only label you may as well give me is female, because that's the only one that will probably matter. |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1247/1697 |
Originally posted by Captain Subtext |
| Sin Dogan Posts: 599/861 |
Dracoon: What are you talking about?
Originally posted by Tarale Originally posted by Captain Subtext You seem to misinterpret a lot here. None of us are supporting concise labels but are noting that unfortunately, things as they are, call for silly classifications. We(At least I) would prefer to know people for who they are, not trying to fit them into certain groups so I can associate other traits with them without really knowing their stance on the issue. From what I gather, SS is not about using this classification. Nor does he prefer it. It's just, realistically speaking, what most people do. And we can't just dismiss it. I think we all know how it feels when people assume certain things about you due to some of your other traits. Originally posted by Silvershield |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1246/1697 |
SS: You missed it, you really did. I knew what you were going to do and it happened. You're defending against how I read something, something I've admitted was probably wrong. You, and Skydude to a lesser extent, can't just drop it. I admit that I don't have any reason to keep arguing, I could be the bigger man and just stop, believe that I was wrong, apologize, and forget this ever happened, but I'm not going to apologize when I've expressed something several times and it just doesn't sink in.
Oh, and people, quit thinking I think SS is a conservative, I'm bad with political lables. I don't even know what a conservative really does. I figured it'd be people who don't like change while liberals would be ones that do like change. Trunxy: Morality is a hazy word that means jack shit to me. When I hear Silvershield and Skydude use it, I instantly think "values that they like". The idea that it has to be moral in their mind shows that they aren't fully accepting of it. If you don't accept something, chances are great that you fear it. However, a misworded sentence can really fuck things up. Notice how one word changes the entire meaning of Skydude's paragraph. Misinterpretations of a confusing word can mess things up even worse. And I'm going to guess at Kasumi's gender  From what I know, Kasumi would be unable to have kids, at least... I think... hell I don't know, so that would mean Kasumi isn't really of either gender. Kasumi wasn't born like that either though, so maybe there isn't a proper term? |
| Tarale Posts: 837/2713 |
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by TaraleLike I said, why is this a guessing game? My impression of reading Kasumi's posts is that she hasn't outright told you what she identifies as for a reason. She has encouraged people to work out the correct definition, and nobody thus far has. Whether it's Kasumi's intention to make this a "guessing game" isn't for me to say -- I'm not Kasumi and I don't know her reasons. I just don't think it's my place to outright say it if Kasumi hasn't. I think I know what Kasumi identifies as (I don't think it's changed in the 4 or 5 years I've known her) There's no need for you to be rude in expressing that you dislike this being a "guessing game". Maybe you could politely ask Kasumi yourself rather than being so abrupt?
I have only stepped in because I found it frustrating to see so many people insist on almost telling Kasumi what she "is"....  (Some comments have almost been that rude) and disregarding Kasumi's comments about this not being a boolean / binary situation. Remember, this is a part of somebody's identity you're talking about, so be nice. |
| max Posts: 189/214 |
ok ss how about this, we stop calling it homophobe and start calling it gayhater. ok? |
| Silvershield Posts: 217/587 |
Originally posted by TaraleLike I said, why is this a guessing game? Originally posted by TaraleAnd why is it so necessary to give her the correct "story?" Why does everyone in the world need to sit through a ten word definition of her sexuality in order to find out her "story?" When I wake up in the morning and try to tell my roommate about this wacky dream I had last night, he couldn't care less, and rightly so - it may be so terribly interesting to me, but nobody else cares. I wouldn't go that far and say that "nobody else cares" about Kasumi's or anyone else's sexuality, but I think it's the same principle: you want an elaborate system of defining a person's sexuality in great detail, when nobody is really all that concerned about those minor details. For most people you'll come across, telling them "I'm a transsexual homosexual" is all they need. If they're interested in hearing more, they'll certainly inquire. Otherwise, they neither want nor need to sit there for ten minutes while you explain "I was born a male, but I grew up thinking I was female, yadda yadda yadda," or whatever the specific story is. Originally posted by TaraleIt's only "nitpicky" to those who benefit by being able to throw the term around so haphazardly. Any reasonable, unbiased person could conclude that, based on the root "-phobia" - which in all other contexts indicates fear or outright terror of something - "homophobia" is the fear of homosexuals. Based purely on the etymology of the word, that is a conclusion that cannot be argued. Nothing nitpicky about that; "homophobe" is an inappropriate word, and I gave my reasons for saying that in my original post about it. |
| Tarale Posts: 835/2713 |
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by TaraleThen why are you trying to turn this into a guessing game? I believe it's Kasumi's place to tell you which category it is that she identifies with, if you are unable to "guess" (work it out) correctly. She hasn't outright said it herself in this thread, but has been providing you guys with the information you need to have "guessed" it by now... Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by TaraleAre you implying that Kasumi is offended because I've labeled her a homosexual? Because, in that case, she's the homophobe! Let the witchhunt begin! I can't speak for her, however -- I don't think she'd be offended in that she wouldn't want to associate with that group, I think she'd be offended because that category does not give the correct "story". I guess it's similar to you taking offense to homophobia being a "phobia" -- something that might be considered "nitpicky" by others, but is important to you. |
| Silvershield Posts: 216/587 |
Originally posted by TaraleThen why are you trying to turn this into a guessing game? Originally posted by TaraleAre you implying that Kasumi is offended because I've labeled her a homosexual? Because, in that case, she's the homophobe! Let the witchhunt begin! You see, I am offended when I'm called a homophobe because to be labeled as such is both detrimental to my reputation and, on a broader note, simply undesirable. But, if Kasumi is offended by being labeled a homosexual - whether that title fits her perfectly or not - does that not imply that she views that label as similarly detrimental to her reputation or simply undesirable? If anything, she shouldn't be upset at being called that, because to react in such a way suggests that she does not want to be associated with that group. Edit to quote Ziff. Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationI'm not questioning whether it's the widespread, accepted terminology, I'm simply wondering why it's an accurate description of the group it is intended to define. How it got to be like that in the first place, maybe, or why people continue using it. |
| Ziff Posts: 1076/1800 |
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by DracoonFirst, let me get something out of the way by stating how vehemently I hate the term "homophobe." A person who doesn't like to eat bananas isn't "afraid" of bananas, a person who doesn't like dogs as pets is not "afraid" of dogs, so why is a person who dislikes homosexuals "afraid" of them? It smacks of a child badgering his buddy, who's reluctant to do something for a legitimate reason, by calling his friend a scaredy-cat. "You won't cut school with me? You must be scared!" That's not to say that there's a legitimate reason for disliking homosexuals, but to label that preference as fear seems more than a little immature to me. I too hate certain terms. However this is in general usage as the proper term. It is used by professionals and the like. Especially amongst sociologist circles and activists. |
| Tarale Posts: 834/2713 |
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by TaraleLike Vyper summarizes in the next post, though in a slightly hamfisted way, why does the demographic Kasumi belongs to require special treatment? If they can be placed into a preexisting category - and, I think calling Kasumi a homosexual is an accurate description, based on the logic I provided in the post in which I came to that conclusion - why create a whole new class just for them? You are all taking such terrible offense at this because, any time an issue of sexual orientation comes up, everyone gets on the edge of their seats and prepares to jump up and start screaming at the slightest off-color comment. The only offense given is an imagined one. I believe there IS a "pre-existing category" -- as you put it -- for Kasumi. Just nobody in this thread's found the right one yet And yes, she probably does take offense to being incorrectly categorised, like most people do when they're called things they're not (for example, being called a "homophobe" ) |
| Silvershield Posts: 212/587 |
Originally posted by DracoonFirst, let me get something out of the way by stating how vehemently I hate the term "homophobe." A person who doesn't like to eat bananas isn't "afraid" of bananas, a person who doesn't like dogs as pets is not "afraid" of dogs, so why is a person who dislikes homosexuals "afraid" of them? It smacks of a child badgering his buddy, who's reluctant to do something for a legitimate reason, by calling his friend a scaredy-cat. "You won't cut school with me? You must be scared!" That's not to say that there's a legitimate reason for disliking homosexuals, but to label that preference as fear seems more than a little immature to me. That said, neither of those posts substantiate your "vibe" in the least unless you read them in the specific way that you are intentionally doing. By saying that homosexuality is a matter of "morality" and to use that as the reason it shouldn't be taught in schools makes absolutely no comment as to whether, in that specific case of morality, I stand for or against it. Why did you assume that I consider homosexuality immoral? If you state that abortion is an issue of morality, should I assume that you are against it (even though I know from prior contact with you that you are not)? Originally posted by DracoonI went on a paragraph-long tangent about how, since a person's physical gender is occasionally ambiguous (as is the case with newborns who have both sets of sexual organs, and similar scenarios), his or her mental gender is what should be rightfully considered. To the best of my knowledge, while people will be attracted to different things as well as have various physical attributes themselves, all will identify themselves as having the mental and emotional attributes of one or the other gender. So, while Kasumi tried to say that she is somehow both male and female - female because of how she identifies her thought processes and state of mind, and male because of the body she was born into - I take her as being female for the purposes of defining her sexual orientation. I think that to define a person based on the physical vehicle they inhabit is not the right way to go about it, because the goings-on of the mind are a better indication of what a person is. I figured I'd be lauded for speaking of that, not put down; isn't that what many (most? all?) transsexuals want - to be identified by the sex they feel they belong to, rather than the sex they appear to belong to? Originally posted by DracoonWell, you and Ziff seem like homophobes to me. Nope, I have nothing to substantiate it, but that won't stop me from slandering you anyway. Originally posted by DracoonI "come off as a homophobe" if you go in with the intention of confirming your pre-established belief that I'm a homophobe. Originally posted by Captain SubtextI'm not the only one who sees it. Captain Subtext (Trunxy? What the hell do you want to be called?  ) went in with an open mind - or, at least without any preconceived notion that I'm a homophobe - and interpreted my words far differently than you did. Why are you so certain that your biased interpretation is the correct one?
Originally posted by TaraleLike Vyper summarizes in the next post, though in a slightly hamfisted way, why does the demographic Kasumi belongs to require special treatment? If they can be placed into a preexisting category - and, I think calling Kasumi a homosexual is an accurate description, based on the logic I provided in the post in which I came to that conclusion - why create a whole new class just for them? You are all taking such terrible offense at this because, any time an issue of sexual orientation comes up, everyone gets on the edge of their seats and prepares to jump up and start screaming at the slightest off-color comment. The only offense given is an imagined one. |
| Tarale Posts: 833/2713 |
I don't think she's asking for special attention, Vyper. Nor do I think that she's asking for anybody to cater to anything in particular. I think you misunderstand.
This thread is about sexual orientation, and Kasumi is attempting to provide another point of view in regards to this. Yes people are generalised all the time, and that's not always a bad thing. In fact, it's probably helpful for people to be able to generalise to some extent. But the generalisations that have been made thus far with regards to Kasumi are wildly inaccurate.... and while generalisations might be useful some of the time, they are certainly not useful ALL of the time! There is no need to pigeonhole everybody into little packages. |
| Vyper Posts: 244/575 |
Originally posted by TaraleThis is where I need to step in. Why do we have to make the world special so that it fits the needs of one (or a select few) person(s)? Because she's a "whatever-she-called-it" (no, I'm not hating, I'm just confused on the subject), which from what I've read is pretty unique, she gets special attention? That's BS. Kind of like saying I should have everyone cater to my needs because I have Tourette's Syndrome. This is why political corectness and/or flaming liberals suck ass (no, conservatives arn't any better, but liberals are the issue here). Quit being a crybaby. People get generalized all the time. Get over it. (Yeah, I'm being really defensive, but I don't care. Bash me all you want for it...) |
| Tarale Posts: 832/2713 |
Originally posted by Captain Subtext Kasumi did not label Silvershield a homophobe -- she made a statement that others have labelled him and made a frustrated comparison about it. You're labeled as a homophobe in this thread. But you insist you're not, and put try to rationalise with people in this thread. Do you see? This is the position I am in. If someone makes an arguement about something about me that I feel is incorrect, I feel that they should not be able to say that if I have something to say about it.. And personally, I think Kasumi has every right be frustrated about this thread, when it seems that nobody is either willing or able to think "outside of the box" and outside of boolean characteristics in regards to her. I wonder if anybody will work out the "riddle"... |
| Sin Dogan Posts: 597/861 |
Dracoon you fail. You have completely misinterpreted everything under the sun.
Most of you seem to be bigots against conservatives. Namely Dracoon, Ziff, and Kasumi. You WANT to make Silvershield out to be a homophobe because it makes things easier. It makes classifying him as a conservative easier by associating traits you believe to be common amongst them.  |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1244/1697 |
Originally posted by Skydude Seeing as I'm not liberal, nor do I use those supposedly "traditional" arguments, there's no reason for you to bring that up with me, and it's if anything merely more proof of your making unfair assumptions rather than using any evidence whatsoever. Which you need to do in order to advance a point, since you have no evidence. Holy shit, look what one word does to a paragraph. Dude, you used an argument against us, tried to generalize it, and it failed. So you try and cover yourself when it is used on you by your opponet? This is called hypocrisy. You want to see my evidence, circumstantial or not, fine. First, I'm going to explain how both you and Silvershield come off as homophobes, I'm going to do it with context of multiple posts from Silvershield and whatever I can find for you. (You might not be so obvious by calling anything to deal with homosexuals immoral.) Originally posted by Skydude Originally posted by Skydude Originally posted by Skydude From the only topic dealing with gay people that I felt like digging out. According to you, homosexuality is a concept of morality, and as such, it can be deemed either right or wrong and can't be deemed automatically ok. This conveys to me that you believe that homosexuality should be contested and that you don't want to accept it for what it is. A bond between two people of the same gender. This implies it to me, this is how I got it from you. I didn't want to bring it up with you, because I have more respect for you than that, but you've been attacking me and Ziff because we're reading something differently than you. You think that vibes mean nothing and are codewords. I think morality means nothing and is a codeword to make people feel better about condemning things. I get the feeling from you, that if some guy hit on you because he thought you were gay, you would get pissed instead of just shrug it off laughing like a sane person would do. Sorry if you weren't getting at that, but to me, it sure as hell does sound like it. Originally posted by Silvershield Originally posted by Silvershield Yeah, these two posts really give me the same over all feeling that you have something against gays and can't accept that it isn't their fault or something. Sure, you might not have meant it, but when it comes to the internet, you can't correct yourself because someone gives you a strange look. Hell, it's fully possible that I don't think you're a homophobe, but you sure as hell do seem like it in my mind after these two posts. Originally posted by Silvershield This post ticks me off. I mean seriously, wtf. What is up with you and lables and not being able to accept the person's opinion who is there? Kasumi, from my knowledge, is unable to have children. (Unless science has made great advances without my knowledge.) I don't know what I'd really consider Kasumi actually, and I don't think there is a lable you could use. People are to complex to really lable that easily, which I think Kasumi was trying to get at, and you ignored so easily. And niether me or Ziff have tried to PROVE you were a homophobe, you just seem like a homophobe TO us. We get that impression from you. Jesus. Learn2comprehend. You're going to try to argue this, I know it. You're going to say you don't come off as a homophobe at all, because it's right there, and it isn't hard to get the impression that you're a homophobe. You can say you didn't want to come off as a homophobe, but really, anything else you say, just means you're trying to defend not against me, or Ziff, but from a translation of what YOU typed.... jackasses.
However, you're both pretty awesome guys anyways. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
