The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

This case is an example where the transgender female didn't win overall. That allows this situation to seem OK on the surface. If Bruce Jenner had become Caitlyn before competing in the olympics though (and assuming that she would have been allowed to compete as a woman) there would be a number of upset female athletes.

The only way to guarantee fairness under the current system would be to have a transgender group as well, but that would be seen as discriminatory and be too controversial, plus there wouldn't be enough competitors until transgender athletes felt safe enough to come out, which a different group would hinder.

The issue is that we divide the groups by gender. I'd prefer we found a way to create multi-gender classes, based on skill level.

This is why I like auto racing. The physical gender differences aren't enough to necessitate a female league. Either you're good enough or you're not. Women have been competitive there for decades.

 

[Danoff]

There is an easy solution. Don't allow transgender male > female to compete with female athletes. It's only political correctness that makes us even question what to me is a common sense of that way of thinking.

I think convenience and tradition has a lot to do with it though. Men are stronger than women, but only statistically. The most physically fit women would beat 99% of men at their given sport or focus. There is no reason not to expect women to be competitive, but there is reason to expect less women to reach the very top levels of competition than men.

The transgender side of the issue comes down to acknowledging that technology is currently limited, and equal rights doesn't allow that to be ignored. I can see separating transgender individuals in a gender segregated competition because of that.

Why do we separate sports competitions into men vs. men and women vs. women? The simple answer is because women wouldn't win if we didn't, but that's not it. We love to categorize and see who is the best in that category. Sports are all about leveling the playing field and seeing who is best, and man vs. woman is not entirely a level playing field. Since we already know that the fastest/strongest humans are men, we're not interested in the outcome of that competition. What we still find interesting is, of the group of men, and of the group of women, who is the fastest/strongest?

If we allowed transgender male->female people to compete as women in sports, it becomes uninteresting again. It would cause a fracture in whatever sport you're talking about where people who are biologically female can once again compete with people who are biologically female. Because we want to know. We want to know who, of those with a y chromosome, is the fastest/strongest, and who, of those without a y chromosome is the fastest strongest. That's what it comes down to. Any attempt to mess that up for some PC purpose will be eventually thwarted by market demand.

 

[Exorcet]

Why do we separate sports competitions into men vs. men and women vs. women? The simple answer is because women wouldn't win if we didn't, but that's not it. We love to categorize and see who is the best in that category. Sports are all about leveling the playing field and seeing who is best, and man vs. woman is not entirely a level playing field. Since we already know that the fastest/strongest humans are men, we're not interested in the outcome of that competition. What we still find interesting is, of the group of men, and of the group of women, who is the fastest/strongest?

If we allowed transgender male->female people to compete as women in sports, it becomes uninteresting again. It would cause a fracture in whatever sport you're talking about where people who are biologically female can once again compete with people who are biologically female. Because we want to know. We want to know who, of those with a y chromosome, is the fastest/strongest, and who, of those without a y chromosome is the fastest strongest. That's what it comes down to. Any attempt to mess that up for some PC purpose will be eventually thwarted by market demand.

Right, PC should have nothing to do with it. The male/female divide is convenient because men tend to be stronger, etc, but that doesn't make every man stronger than every woman. That does leave room for multi-gender competition. If you want to keep it interesting and make a category out of it you need to pick restrictions to screen participants. We have things like weight classes even among gender divided sports, so I don't see harm in more categories.

You bring up market demand, and I agree with you there. Things would sort themselves out in the end. If cross gender competition isn't marketable it dies (or doesn't start) and that's that. I'm not against segregated sports and I see the practicality of it, I just don't think it's strictly necessary.

 

[Danoff]

Right, PC should have nothing to do with it. The male/female divide is convenient because men tend to be stronger, etc, but that doesn't make every man stronger than every woman. That does leave room for multi-gender competition.

In fact, right up until Ronda Rousey got beaten people were calling for her to compete with the men. I'm sure it would have eventually happened if she kept mopping the floor with the ladies.

That's the nature of the beast. People are interested in knowing who would win, of a certain category, so long as they know how the categories stack up. Such as women's UFC vs. Men's. Once there becomes a question of who is the ultimate greatest, such as a standout in a category which would be assumed to lose to a different category, people immediately want to know whether they have their categories stacked incorrectly. You mention weight classes, which is another great example.

People do this all the time. Once a sports team wins the championship for a given year, there is immediately interest in placing them according to champions from other years. If we could run last year's Broncos against the 72 dolphins, we would. Jordan vs. Kobe., Schumacher vs... no he's the greatest.

It's just how we are. We see a category within a category and argue about who is the best in that category. Who's the greatest superhero without a cape? Who's the best super villain in the DC universe? Who's the best male boxer between 140 and 147 lbs?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Looks like Richard Simmons is joining Caitlyn Jenner as another high profile celebrity to undergo gender reassignment:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/richard-simmons-sex-change-photos-national-enquirer/

 

[FoolKiller]

1) Not the most trustworthy source.

2) How have transgender issues infiltrated the homosexuality thread? They are not the same thing.

 

[Valkyr1313]

Thank you @FoolKiller

I suggest that if news regarding trans issues will keep being poated in here, we change the title to a more general LGBTQA+ title. Maybe the General Queer thread or something along those lines.

As said, being trans is not the same as being gay or bi. Sexuality and gender identity are separate aspects of who you are

 

[Johnnypenso]

1) Not the most trustworthy source.

2) How have transgender issues infiltrated the homosexuality thread? They are not the same thing.

1)They've been sued a handful of times but, for the most part, their reporting is accurate.
2)There's no other place to put it at this point.

Simmon's camp is vigorously denying it at this point so we'll wait and see what happens.

 

[Daniel]

Maybe @RESHIRAM5 could change his 'How Many Genders Are There' thread to 'transgender thread'? Simmons' was also reported to have left the hospital with a full-on beard, something I doubt would have happened if he had been taking hormones over the past while.

 

[Com Fox]

Maybe @RESHIRAM5 could change his 'How Many Genders Are There' thread to 'transgender thread'? Simmons' was also reported to have left the hospital with a full-on beard, something I doubt would have happened if he had been taking hormones over the past while.

I probably should especially with how the discussion turned, hold that thought for a second

 

[Johnnypenso]

Maybe @RESHIRAM5 could change his 'How Many Genders Are There' thread to 'transgender thread'? Simmons' was also reported to have left the hospital with a full-on beard, something I doubt would have happened if he had been taking hormones over the past while.

Beard could be fake.

 

[Danoff]

Beard could be fake.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Obama Names First National Monument to LGBT Rights​

President Barack Obama announced Friday he was designating the area around the Stonewall Inn in New York City as the country's first national monument to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. In the early morning of June 28, 1969, a police raid on the Stonewall Inn -- a typical occurrence at gay bars in the 1960s -- made history when patrons fought back. After police arrested many Stonewall patrons that morning, people protested outside the bar for weeks afterward, leading to the first march for gay and lesbian rights in July 1969.
Those protests are often credited as a flashpoint for LGBT rights in the United States.

 

[stonesfan129]

I couldn't care less what homosexual people do in their own time/life. I just wish they wouldn't label people bigots for not being accepting.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What could possibly go wrong?

Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos has announced that he will be leading a gay pride march through one of Sweden’s Muslim ghettos in Stockholm in a few weeks’ time.

Yiannopoulos made the announcement in live conversation with The Rubin Report’s Dave Rubin, after discussing Islam with Rubin and the risks it poses to homosexuals. “When you start to enforce your political or social opinions through violence, that’s when there’s a problem. That is the moment when the whole world should be saying ‘you are the problem and we’re going to do what it takes to protect ourselves from you’, but the left doesn’t do that” said Yiannopoulos on the live stream.

“The left instead starts making excuses for them, saying ‘oh, well the West created this problem’. Look, this infantilizes Muslims to the status of children who lack free will. It infantilizes them into being mindless automaton products of American foreign policy. That’s ****ing insane.”

 

[huskeR32]

I couldn't care less what homosexual people do in their own time/life. I just wish they wouldn't label people bigots for not being accepting.

Not being accepting of different people/opinions/lifestyles/etc. is pretty much the dictionary definition of 'bigot.' What term should they use instead?

The first part of your post seems to show pretty clearly that you are accepting of homosexuals, so the bigot label wouldn't apply to you anyways.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not being accepting of different people/opinions/lifestyles/etc. is pretty much the dictionary definition of 'bigot.' What term should they use instead?

The first part of your post seems to show pretty clearly that you are accepting of homosexuals, so the bigot label wouldn't apply to you anyways.

If the definition of bigot is someone who doesn't accept different opinions then isn't anyone that labels someone a bigot for not accepting homosexuality also a bigot by definition because they aren't accepting that they too have a different opinion? So everyone who doesn't accept the opinion of another is a bigot by definition? A little broad don't you think?

 

[huskeR32]

If the definition of bigot is someone who doesn't accept different opinions then isn't anyone that labels someone a bigot for not accepting homosexuality also a bigot by definition because they aren't accepting that they too have a different opinion? So everyone who doesn't accept the opinion of another is a bigot by definition? A little broad don't you think?

I think you're drawing a false equivalency here. You can be accepting of somebody's viewpoint while still recognizing that it's a bigoted one.

 

[stonesfan129]

Not being accepting of different people/opinions/lifestyles/etc. is pretty much the dictionary definition of 'bigot.' What term should they use instead?

The first part of your post seems to show pretty clearly that you are accepting of homosexuals, so the bigot label wouldn't apply to you anyways.

So is a homosexual considered a bigot if they are not accepting of a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle? I don't think that's bigotry. I think that is just having a different opinion. And I really couldn't care less what homosexual people do in their own time. It is none of my business. Just making a point here though that bigotry can go both ways.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think you're drawing a false equivalency here. You can be accepting of somebody's viewpoint while still recognizing that it's a bigoted one.

How can I draw a false equivalency when I've drawn no conclusions at all? I asked 3 questions, I didn't give three opinions. Your answer doesn't directly address any of my questions either.

 

[Fgame]

I wanted to post in here as I have a perception experiment to conduct and wonder if it would be supported or frowned upon. As a neutral position I would like to know what would happen if in general forums about cars or non related objects of topic, I would post in a comment that would simply describe something as homosexual in context of vision or feeling. For example the lines of a new photographed car. Just as it seems common for someone to say a car is feminine, in terms of gender, or aggressive in terms of emotion.
I made a post like this awhile back and it got deleted, I wrote to a moderator and got no response. So I am still curious of the effects.
Unlike some standard forum commentary I do not intend to use the description as a basis for either like or dislike, merely as an observation of view. Sometimes a gender description is used as a way for someone to say they don't like something, and this maybe accepted.
In terms of equality there are several issues going on in forums and moderation.
The obvious is that if someone says they don't like a car and give a reason because it looks homosexual and this is censored, then disliking a car compared with gender should also be censored.
And further to that I believe at the moment even saying a car looks homosexual is unacceptable to a forum, even if there are no negative comments implied. In which case no car or object on this forum should ever be likened to a gender, whether neutral or not.

So this is the issue I have, and though for another section, in a similar characterising descriptive fashion of likening an object to a group I choose religion. So I might say this car, especially it's alloy wheels look Muslim to me. That sentence contains no implied bias for the religion, so it should be fine. But if it did contain a bias should it be censored when people may say they do not like "girly" looking colours or shapes on a car, or other object?
And also the statements, if allowed through equality should not be questioned to justify validity, like as if you need evidence to prove just an imaginative thought, they could be questioned out of curiosity, but not to be accepted or validated.
Opinions please. At the moment I feel there is an equality issue in speech, and it needs testing, gently.
My personal view is the politically correct one, where descriptions of any kind can be made, but should not be used as a negative.

 

[Bo]

So is a homosexual considered a bigot if they are not accepting of a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle?

It's not a bigoted view to recognise that a particular viewpoint is offensive or degrading, it's just an observation. Long story short:

You can be accepting of somebody's viewpoint while still recognizing that it's a bigoted one.

 

[Danoff]

@huskeR32, @Johnnypenso, @stonesfan129

At issue is the definition of acceptance vs. tolerance. Tolerance is basically not fighting it. Someone protesting against a certain thing, or advocating for making it illegal, or refusing to do business, or share a sidewalk, or board the same public transport is not being tolerant. Acceptance is another level - deciding that this behavior, activity, way of life, thing is ok, that it is not harming anyone, that it is at a minimum non-negative.

A Christian, for example, may tolerate divorce, or swearing, or homosexuality, or atheism, or bible burning. A Christian may choose not to protest these things, they may choose to continue to do business with atheists, they may choose not to advocate laws against atheism, or homosexuality. However that same Christian may think that every one of those things is sending you straight to hell, and is not accepting of those activities. They may view every one of them as negative, or evil, or worthy of eternal punishment.

 

[LeMansAid]

My personal view is the politically correct one, where descriptions of any kind can be made, but should not be used as a negative.

Your opinions on the appearance of cars if you base them simply on "not negative = ok" would likely end up being sexist, or racist, and/or come from many other discriminatory stances. There's nothing wrong with saying "I hate cars that look like they're wearing a burqa", but there is a problem with saying "I love Muslim cars". Your reckoning would have it the other way around.

The principle is somewhat covered in the transgender thread. If an opinion wrongfully attaches a universal trait to a group, it's a problem. So someone deeming that they feel like a woman, is sexist, because it's defining what a woman feels like. With "Muslim cars" it's either defining how a Muslim looks, or the cars that Muslims drive. Both would be discriminatory. Meanwhile using burqa as a reference discriminates against no-one, despite it being a negative reference in this case.

With all of that said, in some company it could be reasonable to be a bit more sloppy with language. With people that fully know my character, I might be fine using a kind of shorthand and refer to something as "girly" for instance. This thread is actually quite a good example of people feeling comfortable enough that their character and views are known that they will use generalisations and stereotypes without fear of retribution. There is however quite the possibility of hypocrisy when the same people are not willing to use stereotypes in the equivalent manner on other topics, despite their views being just as known.

 

[Fgame]

The strive is to make equality covered in all cases. I feel something is wrong when there is disparity of speech tolerance.
How that equality is achieved I don't really mind. Even if it means everything is allowed to be offensive, as long as everyone has the same rights.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The strive is to make equality covered in all cases. I feel something is wrong when there is disparity of speech tolerance.
How that equality is achieved I don't really mind. Even if it means everything is allowed to be offensive, as long as everyone has the same rights.

You already have that right if you're an American. It's a legal right but not everyone agrees with it so they use their legal rights to shout you down and try to shame and marginalize your opinion because they don't agree with it. It becomes disagreeable when you lie about it, use violence etc.

 

[A2K78]

Not being accepting of different people/opinions/lifestyles/etc. is pretty much the dictionary definition of 'bigot.' What term should they use instead?

The first part of your post seems to show pretty clearly that you are accepting of homosexuals, so the bigot label wouldn't apply to you anyways.

By your understanding of being a bigot that means I'm a bigot because:

- I prefering to date women of my race/nationality (I'm black,non-American)

- My dislike of NASCAR

- My dislike for Republicans and Democrats

Anyhow people every right to disagree/agree with people's,groups,lifestyles etc. without the fear of having a label thrusted upon them. We call that the right to free association.

 

[justin credible]

By your understanding of being a bigot that means I'm a bigot because:

- I prefering to date women of my race/nationality (I'm black,non-American)

- My dislike of NASCAR

- My dislike for Republicans and Democrats

Anyhow people every right to disagree/agree with people's,groups,lifestyles etc. without the fear of having a label thrusted upon them. We call that the right to free association.

It is just a stupid perception people have your correct A2K78 if you have a different opinion to the main stream your either a bigot a homophobic or an idiot.
I have dated white black and oriental women dislike nascar dislike all politicians and don't agree with a lot of things other people might agree with does this make me a bigot?
People have gone mad with labelling other people instead of accepting people have different opinions, Freedom of speech is to say what you want and rightly so if it is not offensive or said to cause harm.
I know two gay guys who told me a joke about two gay guys and it was very funny but what does that make them in this crazy world of labels? or make me for laughing at it?

 

[Bo]

By your understanding of being a bigot that means I'm a bigot because:

- I prefering to date women of my race/nationality (I'm black,non-American)

No, that's called preference. You even said the word yourself. Do you flatly refuse to date someone because you see their skin colour as inferior? That's bigotry.

- My dislike of NASCAR

The fact that you try and compare the continual oppression of humans to your own preference of not liking a racing series is utterly laughable. Bigotry isn't about likes and dislikes.

- My dislike for Republicans and Democrats

See above. You're very, very far off base if you think that bigotry is about simple personal likes and dislikes.

Anyhow people every right to disagree/agree with people's,groups,lifestyles etc. without the fear of having a label thrusted upon them.

Again, you can choose to not agree with something without being a bigot. Agreeing is not the same as accepting. That's a very basic thing you seem to be ignoring.

It is just a stupid perception people have your correct A2K78 if you have a different opinion to the main stream your either a bigot a homophobic or an idiot.

That's a load of rubbish. Opinions called xenophobic or bigoted very probably are, regardless of their popularity.

I have dated white black and oriental women dislike nascar dislike all politicians and don't agree with a lot of things other people might agree with does this make me a bigot?

Refer to the above - no - personal tastes are in no way, shape or form equivalent to a lack of acceptance.

People have gone mad with labelling other people instead of accepting people have different opinions, Freedom of speech is to say what you want and rightly so if it is not offensive or said to cause harm.

Ah, the good old "I can't have an opinion anymore" line. Everyone has the right to an opinion. I've never seen anyone who's been told to stop expressing their opinion on this site - if you can prove your statement with an example I'm all ears. Someone may not agree with my sexual preferences because of their religion, but as long as they treat me as an equal and accept that I have the right to my sexual preferences, then they can't be labeled as a bigot. If I was insulted and treated as an inferior, then that'd be bigoted. Can you see the difference?

I know two gay guys who told me a joke about two gay guys and it was very funny but what does that make them in this crazy world of labels? or make me for laughing at it?

You tell me - I don't know how that relates to a lack of acceptance.

 

[justin credible]

I couldn't give a monkeys to be honest what your sexuality is Bo what difference does it make to me? None what so ever I take people as I find them as a person not what others tell me there like, If there skin colour or sexuality is different than mine so what that is the stupidest mentality I have ever seen in my life to dislike someone or treat them different because they have a different sexuality or skin colour to people who judge without even knowing a person. Really boils my pee.

On "I can't have an opinion any more" This is more true than most like to admit in all shapes of life, EG: I have no interest in Holidays don't do them, when I tell people I don't do holidays I always get labelled as Boring or Weird just because my opinion is different than most. Being said a lot on my opinion of holidays and I never when asked say more than "No I am not going away this year as I don't like holidays and don't go on them" and people jump to label me without even asking Why I don't like them, When I explain why I get told I am wrong and should stop being boring and go just because they like holidays unable to accept my opinion and label me when I say that not doing holidays suits me.

EG: I have two mates who are gay only known them for about 6 months, 2 of the most funny sound guys I could ever meet and because I go out to the pub or cinema with them a lot of people ask me if I am gay as well, when I say no those guys are just mates I get labelled gay boy and other stupid terms doesn't bother me what people think I have big shoulders and skin like a rhino but the labelling is still there. again my opinion is shot down and labelled wrong again having an opinion who to have as mates is classed as wrong by loads of folk.

EG: I was lucky enough to have a windfall a few years back and because it hasn't changed me in the slightest No fast cars No holidays lol No big house I just want to live happy and I am very happy as I am I get labelled Tight as a crabs arse at 30 fathoms because I don't waste money on material things which I don't need and I won't pay stupid prices for things.
My family brothers sisters etc I hadn't seen for years we never got on and went our separate ways years back, soon as I dropped lucky they were getting in touch visiting and hinting at what they need in their lives and when I told them straight to do one They labelled me a tight miserable git because my opinion of them is grabbing parasites who hadn't got time of day for me and me for them if I am honest and now I dropped lucky I should be bezzy mates with them. Labelled again for a different opinion.

A lot of people think they know what's right for other people and can't accept others have there own opinion well can accept they have a different opinion but think it is wrong because it differs to theirs.
The only wrong opinion I think is a prejudged or nasty one.
I don't do facebook or twitter and get labelled a dinosaur because I have no interest in them. again labelled because I have a different view to the majority. happens all the time in this mad world labelling folk so much I sometimes say no opinion on it mate if asked about something and I know my opinion is different than theirs saves all the "your wrong" and them taking an age trying convince me to change mine. If I wasn't going to get labelled for my opinions I would discuss them thoroughly but I don't when I am out and about I just keep them to myself.
The main label for having a different opinion is "your an idiot and a stupid person" making me feel like I can't have an opinion any more, Labelling happens everywhere in all walks of life and mainly due to opinions that's why people keep them to themselves. You can't say an opinion without someone judging you wrongly for it and labelling you.
Over and out, Take care folks and keep smiling and never let the bas*@#~s get you down.