HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Mon 22 May 17 #1 
kevg
The Grumpinator





Knows 39440 facts
like | send message


Mon 22 May 17 #2 
kevg
The Grumpinator

New BBC series starting this week . Strangely they haven't blanked out the e's . How very Liberal of them .




Knows 39440 facts
like | send message


Mon 22 May 17 #3 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Still furious but with something to be furious about now , so who was wrong ? Me , Jmax , JMK or the BBC ?




Knows 39440 facts
like | send message


Tue 23 May 17 #4 
chooky
Contributor

I should probably stay out of this buuut - the e's are not blanked out because in the TV show 'queer' refers to the non-normative in relation to gender, not as a pejorative for gay men.

I guess you're going to be furious at me now too, for pointing out this insignificant  little detail?

 




Knows 166525 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Tue 23 May 17 #5 
kevg
The Grumpinator

nope , because the program is about gay men , sorry to spoil your superiority complex.




Knows 39440 facts
like | send message


Tue 23 May 17 #6 
chooky
Contributor

No need to apologise. You can't spoil something I don't have.

Are you sure you're not getting Queer Britain mixed up with Queer as Folk?  one show is a drama about gay men, the other is a documentary which involves the wider LGBTQ  community. The first episode is titled "Does God Hate Queers?"
Which raises a question I would like to ask you and it is meant seriously, not in a smart-arse way. I can understand (not agree with, just understand) how and why people of many religious faiths may struggle to accept non-heterosexuality but various post of yours have left it in no doubt that you are, dare I say, almost militantly atheist. Sans religious doctrine, what can your objection possibly be?




Knows 166525 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Tue 23 May 17 #7 
sally906
Contributor

if the show offends you young Kev - don't watch it. 




Knows 25918 facts
like | send message
4 people like this post


Wed 24 May 17 #8 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Not going to Sally, my objection to religious doctrine Chooky is simple enough , like me , "religion is the opium of the masses" , my objection to homosexuality is well known , although as long as they don't frighten the horses they can do what they want , just don't come crying when you catch diseases through playing in body's sewer.




Knows 39440 facts
like | send message


Wed 24 May 17 #9 
kevg
The Grumpinator

By the way , you are all missing my point . I got banned for saying "queers" but BBC uses it quite openly . Liberal numpties ?




Knows 39440 facts
like | send message


Wed 24 May 17 #10 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

It's deja vu all over again. kevg raising his sense of hurt and sexual obsessions.

I'm not sure that the word used was queer or qu**r, but memory can play false. It is not about the word itself but the context it was used in and the intent.

Is this example clear enough for you?  'I respect and admire Christians' or 'I despise Christians and believe they deserve to die'. The first may be agreed with or not and can be debated. The second should be debated and is frightening, threatening and offensive. The word Christian is neutral, I could have used a perjorative in the second sentence, 'pork-eaters', 'crazy crusaders' which would have added to it's threat.

As to STDs in the UK, by far the largest proportion currently are those transmitted by heterosexual activity. In other parts of the world AIDS has its greatest occurrence amongst heterosexuals.




Knows 130666 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Wed 24 May 17 #11 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Not hurt , they get it up the b*m not me . Context ? nobody mentioned context to me , but then again nobody mentioned anything to me , a shame because I have been on this site longer than any concerned in this , a little respect would have been nice . I know I don't show any but hey I am an old man.




Knows 39440 facts
like | send message


Thu 25 May 17 #12 
jmaxg
Contributor

Kev, all I can say is that I am not drinking to the "koolaid" just yet.

But at the same time, I am trying to wrap my mind around and research that which is known as "the gender spectrum".

At the moment, I am not very happy with the whole idea. Some media celebrities who are on record in their previous TV programs relative to explaining sexuality as being "xx" or "xy", are now all gung-ho in their new TV show (Bill Nye and Netflix - I am looking at you) and gender spectrum.

Canadian professor Jordan Peterson is currently on record as opposing Bill C-16, a law that makes it a criminal offence in Canada to deny or not observe any language that is believed by the originator to be expressive of that particular originator's gender status. Professor Peterson's objection is that there is no limit to this mandate, up to and including altering an existing language so that a minority can, in fact, alter the course of a majority even if the motivation is purely linguistic disruption. Given the attitude of some, I repeat, some, social justice warriors (SJWs), I understand his objections.

At this point in time, I tend to agree with Professor Peterson's point of view. I think that Canadian Bill C-16 was not properly thought out relative to it's implications.

However.......

I think the current sexuality identifcation and gender identification questions are valid and worth further attention. Civil rights is an undeniable issue and if a part of our community wishes to be referred to in certain terms, then the community as a whole is obliged to work out some common ground.

And let's be clear here.......there are vicious and deplorable attitudes at either end of the discussion spectrum. But being unreasonable is not the answer.

My nightmare is that one day, somebody says to me they are a "trans-male-fem-homohetero with non-binary attributes and cis objections".

I go "Huh?" and my ass gets hauled away to prison.

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 25 May 17 #13 
chooky
Contributor

What do you mean nobody mentioned context? I did, in the first comment after yours when you began the thread! You were clearly using the word "queer" in an insulting way. That word has now been re-appropriated by the some in the LGBT community to describe people whose sexual orientation is non-heterosexual (this applies to gender also), so it is perfectly acceptable for the TV show to use the word. I think this sort of thing should be happening much more often with many other words.

Your sole objection to homosexuality can't possibly be "they get it up the b*m" can it?
If so, let me pass on a couple of salient facts in that regard. Firstly, (and I'll be dying to hear your reaction to this) it is now very common for straight men to request - I'm trying to put this as delicately as possible - "entry through the backdoor" from their partners. Of those who comply many will do so because they feel pressured but apparently some women enjoy it.
Secondly, there are many ways gay men can, and do, enjoy a sexual relationship which don't involve the rectum!
You mention being on Facta longer than many others. That's true and it saddens me a little to think that someone who has had such a large presence on the site and contributed so much simply can't or won't let us liberal numpies prattle on without taking it to heart.




Knows 166525 facts
like | send message
4 people like this post


Thu 25 May 17 #14 
chooky
Contributor

BTW. Ladies, if your ever confronted with an "in through the out door" request and you're not happy about it, just do what I intend to do if my husband ever asks me for a**l sex.
I'll tell him I'll be happy to comply just as soon as my strap-on comes back from the cleaners.




Knows 166525 facts
like | send message


Thu 25 May 17 #15 
jmaxg
Contributor

Can you be specific as to what your complaint is?




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 25 May 17 #16 
chooky
Contributor

Can who be specific?




Knows 166525 facts
like | send message


Thu 25 May 17 #17 
jmaxg
Contributor

*"I'll tell him I'll be happy to comply just as soon as my strap-on comes back from the cleaners."

You know what? That's appropriate.

It's a little tasteless. But us guys have been tasteless at whim for over three thousand years.

It's only fair you get your revenge.

That's what this is about, right? Revenge?




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 25 May 17 #18 
chooky
Contributor

I was wondering if you were talking to me or kev.  He can be very specific.
If I get any more specific, I'll get banned too.




Knows 166525 facts
like | send message


Thu 25 May 17 #19 
jmaxg
Contributor

Kev knows when I am talking to him.

He also knows I spend a lot of time explaining him. That is not a good thing.

But he is my mate and I have no trouble doing it.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 25 May 17 #20 
Helen McKenzie
Contributor

These forums are interesting and a great read




Knows 23173 facts
like | send message


Thu 25 May 17 #21 
jmaxg
Contributor

And they should be Helen. With the advent of the internet, misinformation is now as prevalent as information. The consumer's job is to work out which is which.

Documentaries like "Queer Britain" shine a light on lifestyle and, by default, real life choices and the consequences therein.

Once upon a time, there was male, female and homosexual. Now, because of Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer or Questioning (the acronym is "LGBTQ+"), definitions are exploding across the socialogical spectrum. I am not sure I am ok with that as the acronym itself doesn't follow logical rules.

If one is a lesbian, then one is gay. So, why the separate labelling? Also the relatively recently added "queer" which has always been a misnomer for being a homosexual and has been accepted by the community as a term of pride.

(misnomer in that "queer" used to mean strange or different and was not specifically related to sexuality)

So, if one is to be honest, "LGBTQ+" should actually be Homosexual/Homosexual/Bisexual/Transgender/Homosexual or Questioning. That acronym is HHBTHQ. Or, as repetition is redundant, HBTQ.......with the "Q" negating the need for a "+".

Therein lies the problem. One side of the community is all "hunky dory" with the "xx" and "xy" definition of society. Whilst the other side of the community, who have a claim within the community that is normal and proper by the way, are going bat-shit crazy with tactics designed to confuse and inflame.

In the middle are the activists who have no idea of the issues (either way) but choose to speak up because of......THE INTERNET!.....and their 15 seconds of fame.

All of this tends to lead to a society where one side always feels the need to sucker-punch the other. The sucker-punch.....the act of striking at somone when their attention is elsewhere.......the lowest of acts and cowardly by it's very definition.....commonly being applied.......think about that.

*screaming girl on campus (far left position)

*racist lady at Walmart (far right position)

If we want to avoid that, then we should stop shouting and start talking.

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 26 May 17 #22 
sally906
Contributor

What is I?  Our TV is talking about Margaret Court - Tennis player turned Christian Pastor who has announced she is refusing to fly Qantas as the company supports same sex marriages. They were interviewing the president of the L,G, B, T and I group. Have never heard of I. 




Knows 25918 facts
like | send message


Fri 26 May 17 #23 
chooky
Contributor

The "I" is for intersex. As I understand it, it refers to somebody whose gender is not straightforward in some way.  Chromesomes don't match outer genitalia or someone born with both sets, like hermaphrodites.
Apparently an "A" is now sometimes included. For those who are asexual.
In case you haven't heard yet, those of us who are comfortable as the gender we were born with are "Cisgender"




Knows 166525 facts
like | send message


Fri 26 May 17 #24 
sally906
Contributor

Can't we all just be humans?  Would be much easier :)  Thanks - intersexual sounds right. 




Knows 25918 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Sat 27 May 17 #25 
jmaxg
Contributor

"Intersex" or "Intersexual".......the mindset of not being related to any sexual or gender identity. It is about a frame of mind by which the participants claim to not identify with any particular spot in the sexuality and/or gender spectrum.

It has nothing to do with genitalia.

Yet they still have and enjoy sex.

In the United States, there is this phenomena known as "sovereign citizens". They enjoy autonomy living within the United States up to the point where they have to answer for law breaking. They then answer "Your laws do not apply to me." based on their own ideas of constituionality.

I think that sexuality/gender declaration is, in some ways, based on the same principal.

"I know that laws exist, but I am not content. Therefore, these are my rules!"

Which is all well and good. But unfortunately, certain laws already existed and if you claim to belong to a society, you have to accept those rules.

Pulling a "Your rules don't apply to me!" stance does not help a community.

It also suggests ignorance or laziness.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 27 May 17 #26 
jmaxg
Contributor

Precisely as I feared, "LGBTQ+" now proceeds to "LGBTQ I +".

And the adverbs keep on coming!

Just what Professor Peterson said.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 28 May 17 #27 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

I think that intersex refers to those who are physically ambiguous as chooky described.

Those who wish to descibe themseves as something other use the term 'non-binary'. They are saying  that they don't want to be defined by either sexual activity or gender. My interpretation is 'mind your own business'. I think it would be great if we all became myobs.

I'm not sure that it's a great analogy to say that those who declare themselves as non-binary are the same as those who declare themselves outside national laws. There is a difference between those who believe it's OK not to pay taxes, but use roads and businesses and have their nation defended by national security forces, and those who are questioning the way they are described.

This is a thread where some of us have been showing puzzlement and prejudice. I have my own WTFs.I feel cross with well-off transgender women who have talked about having to become their true selves because they just knew they were women. What kind of women? Those who have to walk miles each day to fetch fresh water for their families? Those who hold down two jobs to provide for their families? If asked what I felt like, I would say I felt like me, without expressing my gender.  I get cross with the well-off transgenders because I don't believe being a woman is  about high heels and cosmetics ( I understand that quite a lot of that is media coverage)  there again I know their coming out has been brave and has helped others, but I muse on their notion of womanhood. That brings us back to the idea of there being rules or laws about  gender....

I asked my husband about who he is, I asked him to define himself in lots of ways but only with one word: he said: father, lover, friend, retired, civil servant (I forgave the two words), gardener.... I kept him going beyond this because it was quite funny, but he didn't use the word 'man'. I realise that some of what he said implies man. I know if I did the same list it would take me a while to get to woman. I think a lot of us are confident in our gender and shouldn't attack those who aren't.




Knows 130666 facts
like | send message
6 people like this post


Tue 30 May 17 #28 
jmaxg
Contributor

I'm sorry. I just can't agree. Despite your 6 likes, you are simply not explaining enough.

 




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 30 May 17 #29 
jmaxg
Contributor

The problem with the spectrum of gender and sexuality identities is that they push against the natural order of things.

It's not as if we are going through some evolutionary point in time where all the species of the Earth have to justify homosexuality.

In fact, it's the opposite. It is socialogical justification rather than the natural world at large.

Having said that, in a world where civil rights are just as important as natural rights, it must then follow that we observe ALL rights.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 31 May 17 #30 
chooky
Contributor

But don't we all push against the natural order of things?
Nuclear medicine, artificial reproductive technology, organ transplants, contraception, life support, the synthesis of countless materials, cyberspace ? Don't all of these things break the laws of the natural world?
We can't pick and choose the 'advancements' we like then fall back to the default 'it's not natural' position for those that offend our personal sense of propriety.

(I don't mean you in particular jmax. I mean in people in general.)




Knows 166525 facts
like | send message
4 people like this post


Thu 1 Jun 17 #31 
Ruby Franks
Contributor

Thanks chooky, if I'd had more time yesterday I'd have posted here earlier. I rushed off following an unexpected phone call and on my return  hours later found this page still up.

I just want to add that our description and understanding of what may be called natural law change in different eras and communities. A few centuries ago the sun rotated around the earth. Many could not think of the earth as a sphere. 

It won't necessarily be so, but in the next century, people could well be looking back on our notions of the scientific and 'natural order' and be scoffing at our primitive unformed ideas.




Knows 130666 facts
like | send message
3 people like this post


Thu 8 Jun 17 #32 
jmaxg
Contributor

Oh shit yes Ruby.......we are in a world of transitition.

What happens when a kid gets born and unbeknownst to them they are CISgender, or to normal people, male or female. In this new world, are they subject to torment and ridicule?

I think this stuff is bullshit.

I get that multiple gender identity has been ignored. And so the response is to attack and complicate.

But if this is about hermaphrodite births, something that happens once in every 150,000 births, then I am wordering why the masses are being ignored because of the minimums.

But to solve it must involve patience and dialog as opposed to fights and screaming.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In