First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Do you believe we've become an over sensitive generation?
4490 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 9/17/15

Kitahoshi_Hazel

I had a group of friends that did weekly dinners where two were vegetarian, one was vegan, and the other person had allergies to dairy, soy, gluten, and almost all white starches. I only bring this up because we made shared meals happen - it's possible to do if you want it enough. It also means the food doesn't always turn out because some ingredient substitutions aren't perfect, but we would all laugh about it if that was the case. You can bet that for birthdays we had vegan, gluten free, dairy free birthday cakes. It's not that it can't be done, but whether people are willing to try.

Baking without gluten, eggs, milk, and potato starch seemed impossible at first, but it turns out it only seems so difficult because it's not what we grew up with.


I'd have been okay with that. I already know how to make dairy free and wheat free (gluten free) cakes. Maybe its because one of the traditional cakes we had for Christmas didn't contain flour, eggs and butter was optional. The texture was different from a regular sponge cake but it was good.

Our idea for catering in the Caribbean usually involved some Chinese dish, an Indian dish, an English dish and an African influenced dish. Sometimes they're be a Spanish dish and or a Carib dish too. This would all be at one party.

Oh we tell stories of ridiculous hardship to my nephews and nieces too. We had grown up hearing our grandfather saying that he never had a towel as a child so he had to sun himself to dry. We laughed, we knew he was lying.
11707 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 9/17/15

Buckerss wrote:


K3n21 wrote:

Yeah there is way too many progressives running around.


Fixed it for you. Liberals are something different to what you're thinking about. And yes progressive is a rather misleading title but that's what they're called.


I stand corrected then.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 9/17/15

Kitahoshi_Hazel wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:
It's like being at a dinner party.

You expect your host to treat you with a certain respect and hospitality, and you should give it in return. This used to mean politely obeying the rules of the house, and letting the little things slide that might not have been the way things are run at your home. Your host in return, doesn't comment on the water marks you leave on their furniture when you don't use a coaster, and other transgressions. And this is about each of you keeping your demands within reason.

The problem is today, you hold a party, and invite a few guests, and you are expect to serve dinner to cater to the vegan guest, the one who is strictly grain free and paleo, and the picky eater that only eats pepperoni pizza.

Everyone's so wrapped up in their own individual demands and restrictions that either you have to prepare and serve different meals to each individual or you simply don't ever have guests over.

Neither of those are really solutions, as it defeats the purpose of having a dinner party and everyone enjoying the same meal together.


Also, just to get back to swearing bit. I'm in the business of selling ball cocks, 6 inch nipples,, a few different probes, a whole variety of weirdly shaped male to male, female to female, and male to female connectors. I have waxes you have never heard of (no sex wax though. need to go a shop in Florida or California for that), and studs of all shapes and sizes.

And the fact that I can say those things with a straight face... well, it's taken a while.


I had a group of friends that did weekly dinners where two were vegetarian, one was vegan, and the other person had allergies to dairy, soy, gluten, and almost all white starches. I only bring this up because we made shared meals happen - it's possible to do if you want it enough. It also means the food doesn't always turn out because some ingredient substitutions aren't perfect, but we would all laugh about it if that was the case. You can bet that for birthdays we had vegan, gluten free, dairy free birthday cakes. It's not that it can't be done, but whether people are willing to try.

Baking without gluten, eggs, milk, and potato starch seemed impossible at first, but it turns out it only seems so difficult because it's not what we grew up with.


And I've cooked for vegans who were still appreciative even though I fucked up and included honey.

But I've also seen much food go to waste simply because someone decided that being served something that they didn't agree with was inappropriate.

Your point doesn't disagree precisely with mine either. You went through a *lot* of concessions, and you made it work. Clumsily so but yes.. Back to that politeness thing.

Also, gluten free and vegan are pretty easy to overlap and adapt to. (vegan strips out your dairy anyhow, and most vegan recipes are either soy or other legume heavy, not starch. The easiest recipe would be a simple meatless chili. Or a veggie stew. Or african peanut soup. Outside of that, ratatouille, stir fries, etc..)

I was very hastily setting up a no win situation. one person eats no meat, One person eats limited vegetables and meat, one person eats grains and meat, but demands both at the same meal.

Besides, how far do you make concessions before it becomes too much effort? I'll make those concessions for someone near and dear for me, but to ask me to go through that much effort for someone that this is my first meeting with?
27595 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 9/17/15

AkitoMadaka wrote:

Thoughts?

For example, talking smack in games is pretty much a universally ban-worthy offence.

I think Tumblr is a pretty good environment to see that in action with the use of "trigger warnings" and "preferred pronouns".

I was bullied as a kid, for better or for worse, I grew pretty thick-skinned.

Another note is I work as Quality Control at a poultry plant. Most of the people who work here are felons and nearly no one in my department can pass a drug screening. I've never done drugs, and i've had some run ins with the cops as a kid, but that was ages ago. I use some colorful language at times, never directed at anyone or used to demean or belittle people, but rather when just talking in general.

Example:

Boss: "Hey dude, how many pallets of X do we have in the cooler?"
Me: "We got a truckload of the shit so i'd bet around 20-22. I'll check when I catch up with this damn paperwork."
Boss: "Cool man, appreciate it"
Random girl: "Why are you so disrespectful? That language is really offensive."

Maybe it's because I grew up in the South

Posting a picture of Mittens because why not.


The younger generation yes, Mine, no. We are more likely to punch you if you talk smack. I will not take shit. I hit back and hard. I do not fight with my mouth, that is for candy asses. Real adults can take an ass whipping and except it, learn from it and roll on. My kids generation is weak, weak, weak. I have no idea how half of them are going to survive in a non-sterilized environment. In my day the little racist nicknames we had for each other as friends would be totally unacceptable today. Some of the nicknames people had in my school.....Wop, Ginsu, Taco, Whitey, Nigerean (he was a Black/Korean), Kimosabi, Bear, Slaw, Irish, Obreazy, DK (dirty knees), Black Bob and White Bob, Little Jeff and Big Jeff, etc. We just accepted that we were all different, and that was cool. I miss the camaraderie...does the young generation even have that anymore? Or is it all Facebook friends?
29840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/17/15
I feel like this is true, and you can't say anything without offending someone. It's annoying and has come to the point where I can't voice my opinions.
21362 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 9/17/15
ugh why would you even ask that? don't you know this is a touchy subject
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 9/17/15

Steelmonk wrote:

The younger generation yes, Mine, no. We are more likely to punch you if you talk smack. I will not take shit. I hit back and hard. I do not fight with my mouth, that is for candy asses. Real adults can take an ass whipping and except it, learn from it and roll on. My kids generation is weak, weak, weak. I have no idea how half of them are going to survive in a non-sterilized environment. In my day the little racist nicknames we had for each other as friends would be totally unacceptable today. Some of the nicknames people had in my school.....Wop, Ginsu, Taco, Whitey, Nigerean (he was a Black/Korean), Kimosabi, Bear, Slaw, Irish, Obreazy, DK (dirty knees), Black Bob and White Bob, Little Jeff and Big Jeff, etc. We just accepted that we were all different, and that was cool. I miss the camaraderie...does the young generation even have that anymore? Or is it all Facebook friends?


Well..... Since you brought it up, I went to college with a guy that insisted on being called "Mike the Gook".....
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/17/15

serifsansserif wrote:

hey there. ;)

Long time no see.


Hello, again!


Swearing I feel is about context. Words themselves, profane or not, have no real negativity except for that which the people within the social group put upon them. "special snowflake syndrome", as you point out, can be used as a general shield against criticism, but just the same, banning words removes the ability to discuss ideas and points of view in a critical fashion. Many points on this have been brought about recently comparing it to the new push to remove "negro" from Mark Twain's books, (and others), and the criticism in some cases is that people are now conflating teaching the criticisms of racism and its part to play in history with racism itself.


Sure, swearing's inappropriateness is dependent on context. That's entirely true.

Really? There are still people trying to censor Twain? For Heaven's sake, it's just as you say: the man was writing stories whose messages viciously condemned racists, slavery, and appeals to religion to "justify" either of them which prevailed in the day. Huck's father, for example, was portrayed as a selfish, abusive, stupid, incompetent, racist ass. John Galt was a more subtly written character than that man; you couldn't miss the message. Of course, the difference between Rand's writing and Twain's was that Twain was hilarious for his especially exaggerated caricatures intentionally.

That is, assuming this push is gaining any traction, a valid complaint.


The trans portion of your point... I'm a little lost on.

Gender diaspora is a hot topic these days. I remember there's some sort of problems with it being labelled a mental illness under the DSM-V but not totally up to date on it.

Depending on your take of the issue, your answers may vary. Personally, I follow with the theory that gender in and of itself differs from sex, and that gender is a social construct. I find the pronouns rather silly and unworkable. Then again, I don't really find myself fitting well with the male/female dichotomy either.. (gender fluid is a nice term that I had grown attached to).

I see it as being about politeness and respect within the context of the people you are around.

It's like being at a dinner party.

You expect your host to treat you with a certain respect and hospitality, and you should give it in return. This used to mean politely obeying the rules of the house, and letting the little things slide that might not have been the way things are run at your home. Your host in return, doesn't comment on the water marks you leave on their furniture when you don't use a coaster, and other transgressions. And this is about each of you keeping your demands within reason.

The problem is today, you hold a party, and invite a few guests, and you are expect to serve dinner to cater to the vegan guest, the one who is strictly grain free and paleo, and the picky eater that only eats pepperoni pizza.

Everyone's so wrapped up in their own individual demands and restrictions that either you have to prepare and serve different meals to each individual or you simply don't ever have guests over.

Neither of those are really solutions, as it defeats the purpose of having a dinner party and everyone enjoying the same meal together.


The camp which wants to get rid of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis is concerned that if it's retained the diagnosis will lend itself to stigma against transpeople and imply that their very gender identities are representative of mental illness when in fact that's not the case. Considering we've had people posting things along those lines in these very forums that concern isn't wholly unfounded, but I tend to fall on the side calling for retention of the diagnosis. The argument there is that if the diagnosis is eliminated there will be nothing to compel provision of needed healthcare for transpeople by either private/public insurers. The challenge therefore becomes combating stigma while retaining and expanding access to medical and social resources.

The problem of compounding numbers of pronouns is one worthy of mention since as matters increase in complexity progressively fewer people are willing to spend the time to parse things out. Languages need to accomplish two things if they are to enter common use: they need to describe things and they need to be comprehensible. Focusing on descriptiveness at the expense of clarity interferes with establishment of understanding in the listener/reader, and so a monstrous list of gender identifications which may well perfectly describe every minute variation thereof would nevertheless prove unhelpful since most people won't know the difference between at least some of the terms. That's why terms like "transgender" and "genderfluid" are useful, because they cover a lot of ground without demanding that listeners/readers come to learn an entirely new dictionary of terms.

I believe that speaks to your dinner party example's main point, but let me know if I've missed that.


Also, just to get back to swearing bit. I'm in the business of selling ball cocks, 6 inch nipples,, a few different probes, a whole variety of weirdly shaped male to male, female to female, and male to female connectors. I have waxes you have never heard of (no sex wax though. need to go a shop in Florida or California for that), and studs of all shapes and sizes.

And the fact that I can say those things with a straight face... well, it's taken a while.


Now I can say that I know someone in the mystery wax business.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 9/17/15

BlueOni wrote:

The camp which wants to get rid of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis is concerned that if it's retained the diagnosis will lend itself to stigma against transpeople and imply that their very gender identities are representative of mental illness when in fact that's not the case. Considering we've had people posting things along those lines in these very forums that concern isn't wholly unfounded, but I tend to fall on the side calling for retention of the diagnosis. The argument there is that if the diagnosis is eliminated there will be nothing to compel provision of needed healthcare for transpeople by either private/public insurers. The challenge therefore becomes combating stigma while retaining and expanding access to medical and social resources.


Thanks for clarifying.
The stigma is one I agree needs to be battled, and I am neutral/ambivalent towards the diagnosis.

As I believe I said, I find gender to be a social construct..... which makes this next bit possibly offensive to some, but please be forgiving in use of terms...

If gender is a social construct, then by that I'm saying that the gender roles assigned to us based on our sex are nothing more than expectations and attributes assigned to us by society. This aligns with much of what either 2nd or 3rd wave feminism was teaching when I was a child, and was fighting to try and prove. That boys don't necessarily have to grow up playing with fake swords while girls don't necessarily have to have an interest in barbies.

As such, transgender and gender issues really shouldn't exist in a sense since the roles placed upon the genders is illusory anyhow, or at least not tied to sex.

With the varying spectrum of sexuality these days (which is also getting fairly out of hand with the gay, bi-, straight, a-, pan, and various forms of -romantic), which basically frees our preference sexually from being tied to our sex as well.

so then, it gets harder and harder for me to really ascribe much to our physical sex, and therefore, it's difficult to really ascribe there to be a NEED to change it. (and here's the thing, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to. I'm saying I'm not sure it should be treated as a necessity as one might a mental physical illness in the eyes of insurance purposes. You pay for it on your own dime, I don't object, and I have no care.) Nevertheless, we're talking about a relatively miniscule portion of the population, and one that really isn't causing a hell of a lot of harm to people, so generally I feel more likely to say 'let them do what they want" than anything else. It's just hard to grok.



The problem of compounding numbers of pronouns is one worthy of mention since as matters increase in complexity progressively fewer people are willing to spend the time to parse things out. Languages need to accomplish two things if they are to enter common use: they need to describe things and they need to be comprehensible. Focusing on descriptiveness at the expense of clarity interferes with establishment of understanding in the listener/reader, and so a monstrous list of gender identifications which may well perfectly describe every minute variation thereof would nevertheless prove unhelpful since most people won't know the difference between at least some of the terms. That's why terms like "transgender" and "genderfluid" are useful, because they cover a lot of ground without demanding that listeners/readers come to learn an entirely new dictionary of terms.

I believe that speaks to your dinner party example's main point, but let me know if I've missed that.


Nope. perfectly stated. I have enough problems trying to pick the best words with my vocabulary as it is. I'm not going to compound that 10 fold to appease someone who is splitting hairs, much less for ego assuaging.

I'm pragmatic about my word choices, and prefer to get general ideas across in a concise manner than to obfuscate meaning through excessive verbiage even if it's less comprehensive... ;)




Now I can say that I know someone in the mystery wax business.


Was going to make another joke about "hardware" but I don't want to send the wrong impression.

Most of the waxes include just your regular shoe polish, butcher's, paraffin, etc..
41641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/17/15

serifsansserif wrote:


BlueOni wrote:

The camp which wants to get rid of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis is concerned that if it's retained the diagnosis will lend itself to stigma against transpeople and imply that their very gender identities are representative of mental illness when in fact that's not the case. Considering we've had people posting things along those lines in these very forums that concern isn't wholly unfounded, but I tend to fall on the side calling for retention of the diagnosis. The argument there is that if the diagnosis is eliminated there will be nothing to compel provision of needed healthcare for transpeople by either private/public insurers. The challenge therefore becomes combating stigma while retaining and expanding access to medical and social resources.


Thanks for clarifying.
The stigma is one I agree needs to be battled, and I am neutral/ambivalent towards the diagnosis.

As I believe I said, I find gender to be a social construct..... which makes this next bit possibly offensive to some, but please be forgiving in use of terms...

If gender is a social construct, then by that I'm saying that the gender roles assigned to us based on our sex are nothing more than expectations and attributes assigned to us by society. This aligns with much of what either 2nd or 3rd wave feminism was teaching when I was a child, and was fighting to try and prove. That boys don't necessarily have to grow up playing with fake swords while girls don't necessarily have to have an interest in barbies.

As such, transgender and gender issues really shouldn't exist in a sense since the roles placed upon the genders is illusory anyhow, or at least not tied to sex.

With the varying spectrum of sexuality these days (which is also getting fairly out of hand with the gay, bi-, straight, a-, pan, and various forms of -romantic), which basically frees our preference sexually from being tied to our sex as well.

so then, it gets harder and harder for me to really ascribe much to our physical sex, and therefore, it's difficult to really ascribe there to be a NEED to change it. (and here's the thing, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to. I'm saying I'm not sure it should be treated as a necessity as one might a mental physical illness in the eyes of insurance purposes. You pay for it on your own dime, I don't object, and I have no care.) Nevertheless, we're talking about a relatively miniscule portion of the population, and one that really isn't causing a hell of a lot of harm to people, so generally I feel more likely to say 'let them do what they want" than anything else. It's just hard to grok.



The problem of compounding numbers of pronouns is one worthy of mention since as matters increase in complexity progressively fewer people are willing to spend the time to parse things out. Languages need to accomplish two things if they are to enter common use: they need to describe things and they need to be comprehensible. Focusing on descriptiveness at the expense of clarity interferes with establishment of understanding in the listener/reader, and so a monstrous list of gender identifications which may well perfectly describe every minute variation thereof would nevertheless prove unhelpful since most people won't know the difference between at least some of the terms. That's why terms like "transgender" and "genderfluid" are useful, because they cover a lot of ground without demanding that listeners/readers come to learn an entirely new dictionary of terms.

I believe that speaks to your dinner party example's main point, but let me know if I've missed that.


Nope. perfectly stated. I have enough problems trying to pick the best words with my vocabulary as it is. I'm not going to compound that 10 fold to appease someone who is splitting hairs, much less for ego assuaging.

I'm pragmatic about my word choices, and prefer to get general ideas across in a concise manner than to obfuscate meaning through excessive verbiage even if it's less comprehensive... ;)




Now I can say that I know someone in the mystery wax business.


Was going to make another joke about "hardware" but I don't want to send the wrong impression.

Most of the waxes include just your regular shoe polish, butcher's, paraffin, etc.. :P


Most of the "sexualities" people make up these days are just preferences. there's still fundamentally only a few sexualities: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual, and maybe, maybe pansexual. Crap like "demisexual" isn't even an actual sexuality but a PREFERENCE that most people have. Same goes for genders, I think no one adheres to societal norms 100% when it comes to gender, some days we feel more masculine and some more feminine but most of us identify with our birth gender and genitals, obviously, minus those with dysphoria. Not adhering to societal norms doesn't make you some special gender, though, it just makes you normal. People are just trying to specialize themselves and camp themselves in a marginalized group in order to either garner attention, or make their lives seem less boring, quirky even. discounting or trivializing actual LGBTQ+ issues in the process. most of the people making up these new "genders" and "sexualities" are straight and cis girls. not the way to go about it. Kind of pisses me off.
41641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/17/15 , edited 9/17/15

Kitahoshi_Hazel wrote:

3) preferred pronouns
My issue with you having an issue about preferred pronouns is that if you are against specialized pronouns then 'he' and 'she' would cease to exist. I'm not sure I'm ready to refer to every single person in this world as xe/ze/whatever the kids are saying now. I think it would be nice if there was a genderless pronoun in addition to 'he' and 'she' though.


Singular "they/their/them" is considered a gender neutral pronoun and it works pretty well for people, I mean it can get slightly confusing in a situation with multiple individuals

but it's still better than xe/zie which are simply bastardized versions of "he" and "she".
Sogno- 
45631 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/17/15
i hear people getting offended by what's in their food
15531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Vancouver WA
Offline
Posted 9/17/15
yeah the new generation seems like a bunch of pussies. every little thing is a big issue. I hear so many ridiculous things too.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 9/17/15

animegirl2222 wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


BlueOni wrote:

The camp which wants to get rid of gender dysphoria as a diagnosis is concerned that if it's retained the diagnosis will lend itself to stigma against transpeople and imply that their very gender identities are representative of mental illness when in fact that's not the case. Considering we've had people posting things along those lines in these very forums that concern isn't wholly unfounded, but I tend to fall on the side calling for retention of the diagnosis. The argument there is that if the diagnosis is eliminated there will be nothing to compel provision of needed healthcare for transpeople by either private/public insurers. The challenge therefore becomes combating stigma while retaining and expanding access to medical and social resources.


Thanks for clarifying.
The stigma is one I agree needs to be battled, and I am neutral/ambivalent towards the diagnosis.

As I believe I said, I find gender to be a social construct..... which makes this next bit possibly offensive to some, but please be forgiving in use of terms...

If gender is a social construct, then by that I'm saying that the gender roles assigned to us based on our sex are nothing more than expectations and attributes assigned to us by society. This aligns with much of what either 2nd or 3rd wave feminism was teaching when I was a child, and was fighting to try and prove. That boys don't necessarily have to grow up playing with fake swords while girls don't necessarily have to have an interest in barbies.

As such, transgender and gender issues really shouldn't exist in a sense since the roles placed upon the genders is illusory anyhow, or at least not tied to sex.

With the varying spectrum of sexuality these days (which is also getting fairly out of hand with the gay, bi-, straight, a-, pan, and various forms of -romantic), which basically frees our preference sexually from being tied to our sex as well.

so then, it gets harder and harder for me to really ascribe much to our physical sex, and therefore, it's difficult to really ascribe there to be a NEED to change it. (and here's the thing, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to. I'm saying I'm not sure it should be treated as a necessity as one might a mental physical illness in the eyes of insurance purposes. You pay for it on your own dime, I don't object, and I have no care.) Nevertheless, we're talking about a relatively miniscule portion of the population, and one that really isn't causing a hell of a lot of harm to people, so generally I feel more likely to say 'let them do what they want" than anything else. It's just hard to grok.



The problem of compounding numbers of pronouns is one worthy of mention since as matters increase in complexity progressively fewer people are willing to spend the time to parse things out. Languages need to accomplish two things if they are to enter common use: they need to describe things and they need to be comprehensible. Focusing on descriptiveness at the expense of clarity interferes with establishment of understanding in the listener/reader, and so a monstrous list of gender identifications which may well perfectly describe every minute variation thereof would nevertheless prove unhelpful since most people won't know the difference between at least some of the terms. That's why terms like "transgender" and "genderfluid" are useful, because they cover a lot of ground without demanding that listeners/readers come to learn an entirely new dictionary of terms.

I believe that speaks to your dinner party example's main point, but let me know if I've missed that.


Nope. perfectly stated. I have enough problems trying to pick the best words with my vocabulary as it is. I'm not going to compound that 10 fold to appease someone who is splitting hairs, much less for ego assuaging.

I'm pragmatic about my word choices, and prefer to get general ideas across in a concise manner than to obfuscate meaning through excessive verbiage even if it's less comprehensive... ;)




Now I can say that I know someone in the mystery wax business.


Was going to make another joke about "hardware" but I don't want to send the wrong impression.

Most of the waxes include just your regular shoe polish, butcher's, paraffin, etc.. :P


Most of the "sexualities" people make up these days are just preferences. there's still fundamentally only a few sexualities: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual, and maybe, maybe pansexual. Crap like "demisexual" isn't even an actual sexuality but a PREFERENCE that most people have. Same goes for genders, I think no one adheres to societal norms 100% when it comes to gender, some days we feel more masculine and some more feminine but most of us identify with our birth gender and genitals, obviously, minus those with dysphoria. Not adhering to societal norms doesn't make you some special gender, though, it just makes you normal. People are just trying to specialize themselves and camp themselves in a marginalized group in order to either garner attention, or make their lives seem less boring, quirky even. discounting or trivializing actual LGBTQ+ issues in the process. most of the people making up these new "genders" and "sexualities" are straight and cis girls. not the way to go about it. Kind of pisses me off.


It's not that my statements were meant to disagree. I do actually agree much of it is to be "special" however, for argument's sake, (and to avoid the tangenting argument of "how can you tell if someone is *really* gay/bi/straight etc, much less a similar argument to that that you make about gender and how at certain times we may feel one way or another (the archetype of a particular set of women who are conveniently lesbians while at college only to "go straight" a few years later.....)) I just let it slide.

I still firmly believe that gender is just a set of roles assigned to someone via social pressure. I've discussed my own experiences and my family's odd way of mixing gender "roles" in previous topics on it and don't really care to go back to it.

But I do agree with you. It's not something you should use to make yourself part of a cause or hold your identity truly to it. It's just another curious but small aspect to you. I could argue the same thing with racial "cultures" and most other human subdivisions and how that generally they should be treated or made irrelevant.

Unfortunately that's a big chunk of starry eyed idealism and human nature will never let that be true...
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/17/15
Without out a doubt yes.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.