I think the movement would be a lot farther along if they could come up with a one word name for it, no more of this acronym crap. That my friends, is the first step towards equality.

They have actually added two more letters...one of them is "Q", I think it is for "queer", but it could be "queen" also; and the other is an "I"...I have no idea what that one stands for...maybe "indeterminate"?

But you are right...all this specific labeling and singling out only makes it more difficult for the non-queer to figure out and help. And it draws attention the very part of the GLBT movement that makes non-queers the most uncomfortable: the transgendered.

I've heard GBLTTAAF. Gay, Bi, Lesbian, Transsexual, Transgendered, Asexual, Ally, and Family. Of course, GL don't always want B. GBL don't ways want the Ts. Transgenders don't want to be in there b/c they don't consider themselves gay, well, some might, but not all. Because what if you're a male to female who likes other females? There's a lot of in fighting and different issues involved in all of those designations.

Maybe I'll call the issue Sexual Rights/Freedom. Then I can lump fair and honest sex ed into it and AIDS/STD for my Public Health connection.

I think I'd like to have a separate thread about the GLBTOMGWTF issue, so I'm going to do some construction here.

Anyone consider themselves one of these designations? Love to get some input from the actually community.

I'll call my sister and see if she can send me some info...

I wanted to post my opinion about the unity/divisiveness of the non-heterosexual movements for rights. While it makes sense that these people are working together towards a somewhat common goal, their situations are not totally equal, and in some ways I can see how some groups are holding others back.

Gays and Lesbians: As far as I'm concerned, they are people just like any other, except that they are drawn to people of their own gender as opposed to people of the opposite gender. I believe this is something inherent that they are born with and not a "lifestyle choice" or a "sexual preference" implying that this something that they can somehow change about themselves. To me it is no different than one's race or gender in how it ought to be treated by the law.

Bisexual: Here's where things begin to get a little foggy for me. It is much more difficult to justify an argument of inherent sexual orientation when talking about bisexuality. Firstly, it implies a lack of discrimination about one's sexual partners when one can't even rule out one half of the human race straight away, as do both hetero and homosexuals. But perhaps more importantly, bisexuality implies multiple partners, which precludes monogamy and suggests promiscuity. I've had people who were bi tell me that they had no difficulty going from a monogamous relationship with a man to a monogamous relationship with a woman and that they didn't cheat. Perhaps that's true for some, but I find that difficult to believe as a general trend. Think about it in terms of marriage. Straight people can be married. Gay people should be permitted to marry. It's about a lifelong partnership. A bisexual person who marries must make a choice of whether they want a gay or straight marriage, they can't have it both ways.

My suspicion is that people who claim bisexuality are really one or the other, but are more open to different sexual experiences than are your average straight or gay person. That would seem to make it a "sexual preference" rather than an "orientation", a word which implies pointing in one direction. Unlike gayness or straightness which seems to me to be a state of being that exists apart one's sexual activities, bisexuality seems to me to be very much about the sex itself.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I look at it this way. When you are a virgin, you still can, and usually do, know if you are straight or gay. Is it possible to be a bisexual virgin? My sense tells me no, but I could be wrong.

Needless to say, if straight sex is legal, and gay sex is legal, and having multiple sexual partners outside of wedlock is legal, then there is nothing that bisexuals do that should be discriminated against by society or the law. Honestly, since all those things are legal, it seems that the only right that bisexuals are seeking is the right to be open about their sexual activity, gay or straight, and personally I think that's something that should be kept private, gay or straight.

Transgender: Now we get into the really tricky stuff. Can one have the mind of a woman and be born into a man's body, or vice versa? Or are these people simply gay and unwilling to accept the equipment God gave them? Are there cases of men who have a sex change to be a woman, and then get involved in a relationship with another woman? Does that actually ever happen? And if so, why is that surgically enabled lesbian relationship superior to a natural hetrosexual relationship?

A person is born gay. They can't help it, it's just who they are. They go through life and they deal with that and how it is who they are, and it's perfectly natural as far as I'm concerned. Having gender changing surgery is not natural, it's the farthest thing from it. If it is true that sometimes a man is born into a woman's body, then that is something that they should deal with, just like all of the other issues that we all face in life. But it cannot be simultaneously argued that gays and lesbians are the way that they are and that it is a completely natural part of life, and also that somehow God or nature made a mistake by putting a woman in a man's body and that the answer to this is to have gender reassignment surgery. The arguments are inconguous and I can totally understand why some gays and lesbians would not want to associate with transgendered people.

I think that the South Park season premiere this year with "Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina" very well illustrated my issues with transgenderism. People can do whatever they want to their bodies, but I don't think they should expect any extra accomodation for their choices, and this type of surgery is without a doubt a choice. Specail bathrooms for those who are mid-transition? Are you kidding me? I see this as no different than the guy who gets tattoos, and surgeries on his eyes and teeth to become a tiger man.



Transvestites: This is simply a fashion statement and not a sexual orientation issue. Some transvestites are straight, some are gay, some are normal transvestites, and some are "executive transvestites". Point is, how you dress in your free time is none of anybody's business. How you dress on the job is subject to rules and regulations, and if you can't follow the rules, you forfeit. Some people refuse to ever wear a necktie. Fine, then there are certain jobs you can't do, and I'm sure you understand that when you make that choice.

Asexual: This is also known by several other names. One is "impotent". Another is "ugly". A third is "quitter". I joke, but seriously, what possible gripes could someone who is asexual have about life in America? It's perfectly OK by all accounts to be a virgin. Some people clearly have hormone deficiencies that reduce if not eliminate thier sexual drives. There are medical treatments for that, and I'd bet they're covered by insurance as well. These people deserve no special accomodations or accolades for their unwillingness or inability to have sex.


OK, I'm pretty much done. What do you think?

I disagree with you here. I think you're confusing "who someone feels that they are" with "who someone feels they'd like to sleep with." Most transgendered individuals will tell you that they had the sex change because they felt that they were assigned the wrong gender, not that they liked men and wanted to have the right equipment.

I think that the gender you assign to your self is a different decision than the gender you are attracted to. Given the amazing spectrum of alternative sexual lifestyles, I see no problem with a man, who is attracted to females, feeling that his mind is that of a female, and having the surgery despite essentially turning himself into a lesbian, and giving up the more socially acceptable life as a heterosexual male.

Does this happen often? Probably not, but prevalance shouldn't play a factor in acceptance.

I agree with everything you said. My issue is with the surgery itself. Basically I see it as nothing more than any other elective cosmetic surgery, except that it is much more radical than is normally seen. Just like tiger man.

I think you should not have posted Tiger man.

Offensive?

Bisexuality isn't some fleeting thing for people who are confused. It's just that bisexuals really can fall with love with someone of either sex, and have an emotional and physical relationship with them. And I find it pretty hard to believe that bisexuals are any more or less faithful than straights or gays. For one thing, a person, no matter their sexual orientation who marries someone strictly for the physical relationship is going to get bored eventually and cheat. The whole point of married is being emotionally and spiritually connected to someone, a connection that should never fade like a physical attraction can. So to be married to someone and be bisexual ideally should no even be an issue. Oh and there is for sure such a thing as bisexual virgins, just like there are bisexual-everythings.

repulsive?

it hurt my eyes

"Where are the bathrooms for dolphins?"

i heard doll has a big cock

The Committee for Understanding and Manumission.

Their goal?

Harmony.
Understanding.
Mastery.
Privelage.

OK, I open to be swayed in my opinion on this one.

What you're saying is that being bisexual, just like being gay or straight, is a matter of openness to a relationship with either gender, not merely one or the other. So the goal of a relationship is the same.

When a bisexual has been in a monogamous relationship for 20 years with another person, does that change anything? Is there not an absence that is always felt for satisfaction from the other gender? Or is the satisfaction not really as much of an issue as I am making it out to be? Am I being unreasonable to believe that bisexuality and monogamy are a difficult fit?

This might be the most articulate analysis of this topic I've ever seen. Highly persuasive.

Monogamy is monogamy, either you have it or you don't, I really don't think it has anything to do with a person's sexual orientation. A straight man who is married has a billion women he could potentially cheat on his wife with, but doesn't because he's faithful. I don't see the difference between the straight married guy and the bisexual married guy, other than with the bi guy there is a couple billion women and a couple billion men they would cheat on their wife / husband with, but again hopefully doesn't because he's faithful.