next »

[al_wallace]

I strongly disagree with how acronyms choose to arrange themselves. I think it diminishes the sanctity of words. Don't get me wrong. I love the individual letters, but I hate how they choose to organize themselves. Love the letter. Hate the acronym. Letters were meant to form recognizable words, as linguists have dictated for generations. I also hate abbreviations. They were normal words at one time but then decided to have part of themselves cut off. That's just weird. Plus you are never sure what they mean. It really isn't clear. Anagrams seem normal at first until you find out that they rearranged themselves sometime in the past. There they were living their life. Everyone thought they knew what the word meant. It hung out with other words in the right context and then WHAM, they come out and have a totally different meaning. Some of them have to move to other sentences entirely because nobody understands them anymore. Sure, all the letters are still there, but now what does it mean? And as for palindromes, I just don't understand how a word can swing both ways. 

[helpful]

I strongly disagree with how acronyms choose to arrange themselves. And as for palindromes, I just don't understand how a word can swing both ways. 

HOF! (I take it the above is written because of the subject of this thread?)

[al_wallace]

I strongly disagree with how acronyms choose to arrange themselves. And as for palindromes, I just don't understand how a word can swing both ways. 

HOF! (I take it the above is written because of the subject of this thread?)

Actually I'm not much of an acronym or abbreviation user myself (not that there is anything wrong with that!) Some of my favorite words have acronyms right next to them. It just isn't my personal preference to use them. Of course it is only a matter of time before they want equal standing in dictionaries as fully-functional words. Then they'll want the right to have prefixes and suffixes added to them whenever they want so that they can enhance their meaning like every other word has the right to do.

By the way clearly this is satire pointing out the tired crappy arguments we hear coming from all the abbreviation bigots out there. If you don't like what I have to say, you can stfu.

[stitch]

I strongly disagree with how acronyms choose to arrange themselves. And as for palindromes, I just don't understand how a word can swing both ways. 

HOF! (I take it the above is written because of the subject of this thread?)

Actually I'm not much of an acronym or abbreviation user myself (not that there is anything wrong with that!) Some of my favorite words have acronyms right next to them. It just isn't my personal preference to use them. Of course it is only a matter of time before they want equal standing in dictionaries as fully-functional words. Then they'll want the right to have prefixes and suffixes added to them whenever they want so that they can enhance their meaning like every other word has the right to do.

By the way clearly this is satire pointing out the tired crappy arguments we hear coming from all the abbreviation bigots out there. If you don't like what I have to say, you can stfu.

Oh Al, that was awesome.  I love you.  Oh, wait.  Al is short for Alice, right?  I mean, oh...  I'm so confused.



Back to the point.  You can't disagree with a noun, only with an assertion about a noun.  So, you can't disagree with a 'lifestyle,' but you disagree with the assertion that it is a 'good lifestyle' or 'appropriate lifestyle.'  In other words, you can make a judgment that the 'lifestyle' is bad or inappropriate.   You can judge whatever you want to.  Just have the guts to say so honestly.  This is not a disagreement about lifestyle, it a judgment on how people live their lives.

[tenured_feminist]

While I understand that some people just feel better doing things with their left hands, I don't know why they have to flaunt it in front of everyone else. I disagree with their lifestyle choices, and how they ostentatiously bump my elbow when I eat with them. It's ok if you are that way, but don't expect me to validate or approve of your choice. And when you're going to act all sinister, I'd prefer that you do it behind closed doors with all your sinister friends. And I refuse to allow my tax dollars to subsidize your stupid scissors!

[t_r_b]

No, but someone has to be pretty deeply bigoted to refer to a person's sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice."

Both sexual activity and celibacy are lifestyle choices. As is surgical transformation. I am not bigoted, I just do not agree, as you are free not to agree with me.

Oh, so sexuality = sexual activity? Interesting. I suppose that means that those who are celibate cannot, by definition, be heterosexual. As if the peer pressure on straight guys to get laid wasn't strong enough already.

Onion, can we add a C to the alphabet soup?

[polly_mer]

I think you people (except Provomeda) were too quick to ignore this point.

Hmmmm...I keep thinking of the Judean Peoples' Front v.s.the Peoples' Front of Judea...  Or "hu." I appreciate the strong feelings that people bring into these labeling exercises, but progressives are way too into nit-picking these issues and the result can marginalize us and keep us out of the larger societal conversations that need our input.

Nobody outside the group cares what you call the support group.  Letting that argument spill out into the common discourse just marks you as those wacko liberals who are trying to ruin the country by being the language police.  Few people find that kind of internally inconsistent, but very vocal insistence that the current terms are wrong, to be a compelling argument for change to be more inclusive of variations from two opposite gendered people and their biological children forming the "normal household".

Instead, what you have to do to change hearts and minds to a more inclusive society is to live a good life and interact with a wider group of people in the larger community.

It's easy to hate a nebulous bunch of "those people".  It's much harder to hate when "those people" are your (generic) friends, neighbors, colleagues, and family members, who you can see are living productive lives.  Seeing specific variations and the diversity of human experience that lead to good outcomes is the way that the definition of normal expands.   That's the battle you should be fighting instead of nitpicking about the proper way to be the language police.

[erzuliefreda]

Gosh, I am so glad we ignorant gays have such smart straight folks to tell us what to think, how to feel, and how to behave.

[polly_mer]

Gosh, I am so glad we ignorant gays have such smart straight folks to tell us what to think, how to feel, and how to behave.

Fine.  Be that way.

In the past couple of weeks around these fora I have witnessed multiple discussions that can be summarized as "We, the liberal progressives will tell you, the stupid masses, how society ought to be and you will listen to us because we've found the ONE TRUE PATH to enlightenment.  So abandon your time tested ways of thinking and acting just because we have rolled into town with our loudspeakers on top of our cars."  I have repeatedly been on the small team on the opposite side of those discussions pointing out why some of the reactions by the general public to that kind of discussion are the way they are.

I thought that perhaps by mentioning yet again that the loudspeaker-tooling-around-town way of trying to change society doesn't work very well for things that must be changed on a person by person basis might add something to the conversation.  But, noooooo, instead the reaction by you is exactly the same reaction the general public has on many of these issues.  "Oh, look.  Some vocal nobody is going to tell me what to think with nothing to back it up but say so by people who are suspect just by holding certain views that I assume are condescending to me and my way of life.  I'm not buying.  Go away."

I'm sure there's a lesson in that exchange.  Perhaps if we all thought deeply about it, then the lesson would be apparent.  Or we can continue to talk past each other and be frustrated with those ignorant people who cling to their ways, rejecting repeated calls for changes in behaviors and thoughts as a result of reasoned discussion and consideration of a diversity of views.

Oh, and for the record, putting me in the heterosexual-monogamous-in-a-traditional-two-person-marriage-like-a-good-church-going-religious-conservative-should-be-camp is a serious error on all counts.  The letters mentioned upthread are not inclusive enough to cover my situation.  If you want to nitpick on that point, add more letters to your damn acronym or get over it and listen to advice from someone who spends more time in the closet than you do.

[tuxedo_cat]

Why is this thread taking so long to become a trainwreck?  C'mon people, more acrimony!  Why can't you all start taking some of this personally?  Get on it, or we're going to have to move this thread out of the Diversity Forum for excessive civility.  We have standards to maintain, after all.

Ok, it is now time for me to officially apologize.

<prying the megaphone out of Polly's fingers>

Polly, I just got my latest DVD of "Queer as Folk" from Netflix.  Wanna come over and watch it with me?

[onion]

As I've said a couple of times on this thread, the OP asked if people knew what LGBT meant.  I said yes, for the most part, but pointed out that, on many campuses, LGBT no longer covered the spectrum, as the students (who engage in the naming of their own groups) see it.  I agreed with LarryC that the naming exercise is a bit ridiculous.  Then someone rolled up on this thread to point out that the "gay lifestyle" is a choice and that they do not agree with it.  My "outburst" was in response to that post, which I found inappropriate.  I'm not disagreeing with Promovenda's right to hold that opinion, but I do not understand why people who feel that way feel compelled to participate in threads like this.  And it was a thread in which a bunch of us were joking around about the "naming exercise", which is an interesting topic in and of itself.  But it was derailed with someone putting a loudspeaker on top of their car, so to speak, and coming to tell us that our lifestyle was disagreeable.

I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating:  as a gay woman, I've received both anonymous and signed hate mail.  I'd had people show up at my door to tell me I was going to hell.  One of those people stalked me, and I'm certain carried a weapon.  The police in my former state, which had a gay marriage ban and a history of gay hate crimes, were unhelpful, to say the least.  People would wait outside of my house because they knew I was gay, knew what I taught at the university, and knew which books I assigned.  My former partner was attacked coming out a market at about 9:00 at night, on a relatively crowded and well-lit street, in what we believe was a gay hate crime.  I had another friend who was raped for "being a dyke."  Before my friends and I went out on the streets at night, we had to ask ourselves if we could "pass" as a boy or go out as our dyke selves, and which of those choices was safer.  If you go out as a young man, and they find out you're a gay woman, you're in trouble.  But trying to pass as a man may allow you to get to your destination without being molested, whereas going out as a gay woman may mean trouble on the way to your destination.  We couldn't even think about holding hands on the street.  The gay bars were raided every week.  It was illegal for landlords to rent to known gay couples.  I could go on and on.  I'm not posting this as a "poor me" sob story, but to say that, in 2009, this s*** is happening.  It is real.  So if I get all "loudspeaker on top of the car", it's because I'm pissed off that my people are still under attack and I'm scared that I could be killed or attacked for my "lifestyle choice."  (I live somewhere much safer now, but I still feel sad for my former students who live in these psychological and physical conditions.)  I'll say it again: THIS s*** IS REAL.

I don't think that equality for LGBTIQQ people is going to come on a person by person basis solely.  I think it's going to come from marching in the streets and doing a bit of shouting.  I also mentioned upthread that the National Equality March is coming up in October, when thousands of queer people will descend on DC and ask Obama, Congress, and the nation to really think about how queer people are treated under the law.  I would point out that there is a good argument to be made that LGBT people do not enjoy equal protection under the law, which is a violation of the 14th amendment.  I would point out that this fight has been going on visibly for about 50 years.  I do believe that the Black Freedom Struggle is a useful historical analogy, although not perfect.

And Polly, yes, you are married to a man and in a loving relationship with a child and, from your posts, I understand you to be an ally.  You would be welcome in LGBTIQQA meetings as an ally, or as "queer", if you identified as such.  My point, though, is that these groups are not open to just anyone for a variety of reasons.  I don't think that a bit of wagon-circling is inappropriate in this regard.

I really need to stay off the Diversity Forum. 

[t_r_b]

The letters mentioned upthread are not inclusive enough to cover my situation.  If you want to nitpick on that point, add more letters to your damn acronym or get over it and listen to advice from someone who spends more time in the closet than you do.

Clearly, we're going to need at least two Cs for the alphabet soup: one for celibate (see above), and another for closeted.

Alternatively, we could scrap the alphabet soup and try something more descriptive: maybe "people who don't believe one's biological sex predetermines whom one should love or how one should live."

That's PWDBOBSPWOSLOHOSL for short. Just rolls off the tongue, don't you think?

[colette_capricious]

None of these, obviously, are all-encompassing, but I'm on board with the more inclusive "Everybody but homophobes."  I've (possibly naively) always thought that "queer" meant "not hetero-monogamist" so maybe Q&A is all-encompassing after all.


On preview, yes, we are probably nitpicking - but I hope that we're working toward inclusivity.

When I worked for the local organization, we kept running into the same alphabet soup issue. Trying to be inclusive is so difficult when everybody identifies a separate way.  Talk about herding cats.

I was so tempted just to go with "No Haters".  Because you do, of course, get into within group issues (gay/lesbian v bi, gay v lesbian, trans-issues, agism, pre/post stone wall, christian v pagan, etc, etc, etc.)

I like No Haters.

[tenured_feminist]

If a subordinated group wants to have an intense and complicated discussion about how to define and establish boundaries concerning its identity, I don't really see that directive interventions in the discussion by majority group members are all that helpful.

And I think it's very sad that we as a community here on CHE still have to go through the semi-regular version of Onion's post because some don't get that this isn't just all fun and games.

[polly_mer]

Onion, my point was that I know exactly that these things happen in 2009 because I belong to a couple groups that the nice folks will run out of town on a rail while the less nice folks will react with violence toward.  Indeed, often as part of the argument against wider acceptance of homosexuality, the argument is brought up that "If we accept gay people as normal, then next thing you know we'll also have X, Y, and Z.  Those perverts certainly cannot be allowed to be around our children or be accepted as normal members of society.  So we're drawing the line here." 

I cannot run for public office in most places because it would soon get out that I am the proud member of multiple groups that are far less well represented in the general population (<5% by polls for the most numerous group and less than 1% by polls for other groups) than homosexuals (at least 10% according to numbers I've seen).  Now, when people find out that I am a member of those groups, the nice people often backpedal with a "Oh, but I don't mean you.  You, of course, are one of the good X's."  The others some times cut off contact with a "I feel betrayed that you didn't tell me upfront you were one of those people and attempted to pass for normal.  My kids have been to your house alone with you.  How dare you live in a nice community like this instead of off in a compound in the middle of nowhere with others like you?!" 

I certainly don't object to having safe places where people who are not hurting others with their actions can go to discuss their lives.  I think more people should have those kinds of places and college campuses are good places to host those welcoming groups.  However, I know for a fact that, were I to show up at most "We're open to all sexualities.  All non-haters welcome." groups, I would not be welcomed with open arms and would instead be told by the nice people, "Um.  We aren't really set up to deal with that and would prefer you not tell us you have those sexual desires because it makes us uncomfortable."  The mean people would likely not only tell me to get out, but may also spread the word that I am one of those people because dangerous perverts like me shouldn't be allowed to roam the streets of their community.

As far as parades and such, I'm not dumb enough to try to organize a parade that would consist of roughly ten people to march down Main Street USA.  All that would accomplish is painting a big target on our backs.  Even in major cities that pride themselves on diversity and tolerance, the marching crowd would be pretty small and subject to a lot thrown debris, if not actual violence, were we to wave our banners.

In summary, yes, we as a society should show more tolerance to the diversity of human experience that doesn't harm others.  Yes, college campuses should have places where those who are in the minority can get loving support.  Yes, we are far from having a society where everyone is accepted.  However, we are much farther from that point than even the pessimists here think because those only somewhat in the closet cannot see those of us in the way, way back dark corner.