gays, bi's, hetro's, etc

[christoronto]

what genaric term describes all of us in this group :?:

is there one :?:

should there be one :?:

[AugenGn.]

Homo sapiens sapiens works for me.... :roll:

[Scott]

How about individuals?



Scott

[christoronto]

thats a given, lets be more creative

thats a given, lets be more creative


More creative,if you want too say your gay go ahead but i like transsexuals , and im straight so you cant but all those people in one catergory.

lets all just be individuals hey cause there are all kinds of creatures in this world lol i dont want to be apart of them :lol:

[AugenGn.]

Chris,

i guess my point is that any artificial grouping leads, almost inevitably, to us vs. them mentalities and feeds the haters. we don't need any more of that & its more advantageous and practical to revel in the subtle variations found within our species.

[Scott]

Chris,

i guess my point is that any artificial grouping leads, almost inevitably, to us vs. them mentalities and feeds the haters. we don't need any more of that & its more advantageous and practical to revel in the subtle variations found within our species.

I don't think it could be said any better than that. :)


Scott

[christoronto]

artificial grouping? makes one assume there is a natural grouping and how do you determine what a natural group is in this context? if you call yourself straight then are you grouping yourself in a natural or artificial group/way? whew, thus back to my orginal questions in a confusing round about way...

[Scott]

I think the point being made is people seem to need titles to identify themselves. These "titles" that people use to identify themselves is ALWAYS used to constantly make an "us and them" attitude among the population. It makes family turn against family. friend against friend, so on and so forth.
Everyone gets bent out of shape over the whole gay, straight, bisexual thing. You ever notice that everytime the subject comes up people start getting defensive?
That's because of the whole preprogramed notion that we all must have a sexuality title and when someone is called one they don't like it gets them pissed off. I'm not trying to say I have ever been free of that. Most of my life I went through the same thing. Feeling like I needed to have the sexuality title of choice. Over the past year, thanks to some great friends of mine, I've grown enough to realize that it is just plain stupid to need one.
All it's going to do over the years is just keep prejudice and discrimination running rampant.
Since I've become involved with the transgender community back in Feb I have been classified (by family and friends) as straight, gay, Bisexual and told by a few people I just don't know what I am.
I'm not or ever have been a "what" I'm a who. I don't need a sexuality title to say who I am.
I will always just be me.

Scott

[AugenGn.]

artificial grouping? makes one assume there is a natural grouping and how do you determine what a natural group is in this context? if you call yourself straight then are you grouping yourself in a natural or artificial group/way? whew, thus back to my orginal questions in a confusing round about way...

i guess, i'm trying to draw from my readings in ethnology, biology, and evolutionary theory. the only natural grouping is the one i alluded to in my first posting....that is, Homo sapiens sapiens and we can even drop the subspecies, if you like. & i like the old, tried and true definition of a species....that is any population of "potentially" (which is an operative term in this particular context) interbreeding individuals. any other contstruct below that level is artificiall and fraught with personal prejudice, egocentrism and just plain error. each gives rise to the disasterous temptation to place them in a hierarchy based on, what, amount of melatonin in skin cells, eye color, height? so to lump those of us who have been drawn to this particular forum at this particular time would ultimately find us with as many differences as commonalities.

[christoronto]

"any population of "potentially" (which is an operative term in this particular context) interbreeding individuals." that is an interesting point you brought up considering most of us are not interbreeding individuals(though i may be wrong on this point). and yes i agree that labeling can lead to negative sterotypes. but to move forward in acceptance is labeling a necesary evil?

[WEBGODDESS]

ya'll are shemaleboytoys accept it...and deal with it!
End of discussion.

Who wants to blow now :?: :twisted:

[AugenGn.]

...but to move forward in acceptance is labeling a necesary evil?

unless one controls the media, one does not have the capacity to define the label. just look how perjorative certain groups have succeeded in making the terms "liberal" and "environmentalist." i'd really rather not contribute to the accidental creation of more right-wing fundie boogeymen

[Jordan]

ya'll are shemaleboytoys accept it...and deal with it!
End of discussion.

Who wants to blow now :?: :twisted:

AMEN SISTER!!!!!

[AugenGn.]

ya'll are shemaleboytoys accept it...

ah.....who am i to argue with such a divine pronouncement.... :oops:

[christoronto]

i'm good with that also lol

[WEBGODDESS]

:!: :wink: :!:
Ya'll better say that :D

[AugenGn.]

figure around you the best i can manage is being agreeable or just nodding dumbly like a lovesick bobblehead :twisted: .

of course that amounts to the same thing....rotf

[fun1990]

I got the perfect name....how bout ass loving dicks and dick loving asses