Drag Shows!!

[Darat]

Let's get back to drag. My Drag Wall of Fame. Still a work in progress, but I think it illustrates well the vile corrupting force this marginal practice has on our society.

[imgw=640]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/image-3.png?w=783[/imgw]

Can see Dr Who but no Cissie and Ada?

 

[Robin]

To abundantly repeat, if you are referring to a male as a "she" without clarifying that you mean a male who identifies as a woman, you are not being honest, full stop.

OK, here was the thing that was puzzling you.

The only option for a man who identifies as a woman would be a gay man. What other option do you see that makes orientation sense for both parties?

I gave an example from real life.

How exactly is that dishonest???

 

[Robin]

Can see Dr Who but no Cissie and Ada?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_16405feef7d256.jpg[/qimg]

Adding them now.

 

[Thermal]

Ah. Now you're claiming I'm lying when I tell you what bisexuality means to me and to every bisexual I talk to.

If you want to pretend it is deceptive in some undisclosed way then fine

I couldn't really give a ****.

Oh would you stop it? You're not lying, you're being dishonest, and I'm not dropping this down to the grade school level to explain the English language difference.

You referred to a male as a she without notifying the reader. You're not a stupid man. You didn't make a Whoopsie. You intended to cause confusion. If you didn't, the floor remains open for you to explain otherwise.

...I have no idea why you think that is deceptive and as usual you won't explain.

Yet I explained it quite clearly. Now you'd be lying to say that I didn't. As usual, it was explained clearly in the parts you took the time to snip out.

But in the interests of forward motion, let's assume you were possessed by a demon or were brainwashed or something and you have no recollection of our exchanges. Fine. Here's the Spark Notes version:

Ya know, it's really frustrating for a straight guy to get a handle on all this gender and identification stuff. It's so much more frustrating when people who take the time to say that I've got it wrong refuse to explain it, or explain it using deceptive terminology that they know damn right well will only confuse the issue further. That's dishonest.

Like, bisexuality has a definition in English. Pretty straightforward one. So using it in a purely "unique to me" way is going full-tilt Humpty Dumpty and is absolutely deceptive, or at the very very least, deliberately unproductive.

Robin, I'm not trying to challenge your POV. I am expressing the frustration that comes from ambiguity in these kinds of discussions. For instance, if you say what the term "bisexual" means to you as a bisexual, then you go on to correct me and speak for others (see your first line in this exchange), you really don't see the problem there?

If you consider the term to be subjective in meaning, you lead with that. Acknowledge that you are making things up. That way, when you describe yourself as a bisexual, readers know it might mean, like, anything. But since you have adopted the Humpty Dumpty treatment of words, the words you use to explain yourself might also mean something different than a reader would think. You can't play the unspoken subjective meaning card when dealing with a confusing subject that you are trying to get clarification on. It just muddies the waters endlessly.

 

[Thermal]

And it's kind of funny that a non-bisexual tells me, a bisexual that I am wrong about what bisexuality is and he calls me condescending

Now you are lying, Robin. I don't know what you are or aren't and am not arguing that.

Another poster used the term "bisexual" in the way I've understood it in the past, but that here on the forum (and by a poster actually in this discussion), I have been assured was incorrect. So I correct my usage.

You come in and say that I am wrong and should be using the term in my original sense. Pretty comically, you claim to speak for the meaning used by the original poster, and myself, when you later treat all the meanings as subjective. Except that you are for sure the authority and planet earth is wrong.

Do you understand yet what I'm getting at? If it's all freaking subjective in meanings, you might be what the rest of us would call a heterosexual that's just using the word "man" to mean "woman". That is quite literally the problem with pretending words don't mean things.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Maybe he just prefers having it both ways.

 

[Elaedith]

But two transwomen would either be lesbian, from the identity POV, or gay men, from the mechanical POV. A bisexual wouldnt work, as a transwoman is not really either. Did you mean a pansexual?

A bisexual person is able to be attracted to both sexes, so might not mind somebody having mixed sex characteristics (such as a feminine presentation with male genitals).

AFAIK, 'pansexual' is just the replacement term for bisexual used by people who deny that sex is binary.

Plus no one is claiming that transanything is involved. "Identifying" as a woman doesn't really mean you are "transing", if I understand the distinction correctly. Identifying is just something you say, not something you are.

If sex denialism is carried to the extreme, we should presumably all be attracted only to somebody's 'gender'.

 

[Thermal]

A bisexual person is able to be attracted to both sexes, so might not mind somebody having mixed sex characteristics (such as a feminine presentation with male genitals).

AFAIK, 'pansexual' is just the replacement term for bisexual used by people who deny that sex is binary.


If sex denialism is carried to the extreme, we should presumably all be attracted only to somebody's 'gender'.

Here's the first search engine hit asking what the difference is. They toss in "omnisexual" to really confuse things.

https://www.medicinenet.com/pansexual_vs_omnisexual_are_they_different/article.htm

I think it's safe to say that you're going to be hard pressed to get more than a few people at a time to agree. Then you'll have some smug bastard trying to reduce it to "well it's complicated".

No, it's not. Words mean things. You don't get to make stuff up if you want to communicate. Hence my frustration with these discussions. They can't go anywhere by design.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Here's the first search engine hit asking what the difference is. They toss in "omnisexual" to really confuse things.

https://www.medicinenet.com/pansexual_vs_omnisexual_are_they_different/article.htm

I think it's safe to say that you're going to be hard pressed to get more than a few people at a time to agree. Then you'll have some smug bastard trying to reduce it to "well it's complicated".

No, it's not. Words mean things. You don't get to make stuff up if you want to communicate. Hence my frustration with these discussions. They can't go anywhere by design.

Perhaps sexuality isn't a thing that is easily put into neat compartments to be precisely labelled. I don't see that that needs to be done before we can agree on things like "let's not have separate sets of rights for some people and not others". Person A wants to wear Outfit B. Why does it matter what bits their body has, what their chromosomes are, who they prefer to bang when opportunity arises, and what they call themelves and how often?

Unless they're borrowing your dresses or banging you none of that seems important to anybody but that particular individual.

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps sexuality isn't a thing that is easily put into neat compartments to be precisely labelled.

Pretty sure it can, at least Inbroad enough terms to discuss it. A bridge too far?

I don't see that that needs to be done before we can agree on things like "let's not have separate sets of rights for some people and not others". Person A wants to wear Outfit B. Why does it matter what bits their body has, what their chromosomes are, who they prefer to bang when opportunity arises, and what they call themelves and how often?

Unless they're borrowing your dresses or banging you none of that seems important to anybody but that particular individual.

Well...yeah I'm down with that. Live and let live, and if anyone wants me to judge performances on artistic or aesthetic merit, I'm in. Got my own 1-10 numbers and everything.

What I'm arguing about with R is a little off to the side of that, though, and it comes up in all these threads: the dreaded G Word. The very word that haunts That Thread year after year. The word that turns a simple discussion into a metaphysical oracle dissertation. It makes me cranky.

 

[Robin]

Yet I explained it quite clearly

You wrote an awful lot of words but you didn't come within a cooee of backing up your allegation of dishonesty.

Close as I can tell you are complaining that when I was addressing your question about someone identifying as a woman I didn't tell you that I was talking about someone identifying as a woman.

Did you ever hear of something called context???

Since I was answering your question a out a male identifying as a woman then of course I.eould be talking about a make identifying as a woman.

Answer me this. Did you forget what your question was???

 

[Robin]

A
AFAIK, 'pansexual' is just the replacement term for bisexual used by people who deny that sex is binary.

Yes, exactly. Although the term bisexual was never intended to exclude anyone a lot of people think that the word implies a binary.

But labels aren't contracts, they don't commit you to anything. Not even the term heterosexual..

 

[Thermal]

You wrote an awful lot of words but you didn't come within a cooee of backing up your allegation of dishonesty.

Close as I can tell you are complaining that when I was addressing your question about someone identifying as a woman I didn't tell you that I was talking about someone identifying as a woman.

Did you ever hear of something called context???

Since I was answering your question a out a male identifying as a woman then of course I.eould be talking about a make identifying as a woman.

Answer me this. Did you forget what your question was???

But that's exactly the thing: since we were talking about the mechanical/biological aspect, equivocating a gender identification in there is obviously going to be a curve ball.

Honestly, man. Did you think that casually throwing a "she" in there wasn't going to cause confusion, and quite deliberately so? You described two "shes". You conveniently didn't mention that one was male. Come on.

 

[Robin]

The thing is trans gender people are able to date, form relationships, call in love, commit for life without worrying about terminology wars.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, exactly. Although the term bisexual was never intended to exclude anyone a lot of people think that the word implies a binary.

But labels aren't contracts, they don't commit you to anything. Not even the term heterosexual..

But in order to communicate anything at all, the words have to mean the same thing to both parties. You can't say "she" when you mean a guy without clarification.

If you wanted me to pick out a woman from a lineup of six mixed sex people, would that be possible to do if you didn't tell me that you were using "woman" to mean a six foot male with a beard? What if none were over five foot six, but you also had another subjective meaning for "six"?

Words mean things, bro.

 

[Thermal]

The thing is trans gender people are able to date, form relationships, call in love, commit for life without worrying about terminology wars.

Great. Then don't use the terminology, and certainly never ever correct anyone else on it's usage if you can't even be bothered to decide for yourself if it means anything.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why then, is it so important to protect the privilege of males to wear a caricatured costume of females for entertainment purposes?

I don't think it's important at all. I don't think males should have any particular privilege to wear caricatured costumes of females for entertainment purposes... just like I don't think white people should have any particular privilege to wear caricatured costumes of black people for entertainment purposes.

Why are you asking me to answer my own question as if it's some kind of gotcha?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not sure we quite have the right terminology available.

The terminology is "pansexual". It's essentially bisexual with extra sriracha.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I expect they meant bisexual. I have no idea why you think a bisexual couldn't date a trans woman. Bisexual just means we aren't hung up on the sex or gender of the people we are attracted to. Pansexual is just a term for what most people mean by bisexual.

Disagree. I know several bisexual females who are not at all interested in transgender people. From their own description, they tend to be attracted to people who are either 1) male bodied and very masculine in presentation and behavior or 2) female bodied and very feminine in presentation and behavior. They are not attracted to effeminate males or to butch females.

Many people who consider themselves bisexual are not interested in transgender people of either sex. If a person is open to transgender people of either sex and any sexual orientation, that is pansexual.

Then we just start running out of terms, and frankly I don't see a good reason to label everything. My sibling's oldest child is a transgender identified male, who is exclusively attracted to other transgender identified males. Apparently they really really like people who wear dresses and make-up but who have penises. I have no clue what label that would be, they use "pansexual" to describe themself. I mostly call them "happy" as they've been in a serious relationship with the same person for 4 years now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ah. Now you're claiming I'm lying when I tell you what bisexuality means to me and to every bisexual I talk to.

...

I've been a bisexual for fifty years, I think I know what it's all about.

I'd say you know what it's about to you. That's not consistent with what I've heard from several female bisexual friends, who do not hold the same view as you.