tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385675070003697250.post1481448894207007747..comments2024-03-23T23:01:32.356-04:00Comments on Truth & Beauty: Trans NonconformityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385675070003697250.post-63283895455845444362016-05-15T15:28:07.109-04:002016-05-15T15:28:07.109-04:00I guess you could say I see some value in both app...I guess you could say I see some value in both approaches. It's nice to find a word that describes you, that's different from the word that people who are not like you use to describe themselves. At the same time, I agree with the goal of inclusivity that is served by encompassing individual diversity under a blanket term. Perhaps we could have both. Like how not all rectangles are squares, but squares are a type of rectangle. You can identify as a square or some other kind of rectangle (e.g., trapezoid), but then you can still all come together under the umbrella of rectangle acceptance.<br /><br />On that note, I really like this new term I've seen in a few places to replace "LGBT". Instead of tacking on more and more labels (Q, I, A, and so on), each one causing the term to become even more unwieldy, I think that "GSM", which stands for "gender and sexual minorities", is much better as a blanket term. I have to admit that I also like how its ambiguity also tacitly includes minorities that aren't *officially* represented by the LGBT community (yet). That's actually why some people don't like it - "you creep, homosexuality is NOTHING like bestiality!" But I think what the future holds for us is more inclusion and not less - and if I'm wrong, then I'd prefer to stick to my principle of tolerance. Members of any minority have a special responsibility to be more accepting towards other minorities, because they know what it's like to be marginalized and discriminated against. I don't accept the "there might be flies on /those/ guys, but there ain't no flies on us" mentality.zharthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09995423745639356980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385675070003697250.post-74586493821226501132016-05-15T14:11:21.575-04:002016-05-15T14:11:21.575-04:00Wow, very illuminating. I'm glad to see there&...Wow, very illuminating. I'm glad to see there's more to the trans label. I often feel that the labels I have would be contested by most. Bisexual for example. I'd take a C- woman over an A+ guy. I'll never have the kind of emotional connection with any man that I have with women. But I'll take an A+ guy over a D- woman. I'm sexually attracted to men and women, so bisexual sounds like the right word to me. But most would probably preclude me on account of the vast overwhelming discrepancy between the strength of the two attractions.<br /><br />Personally, I feel like when people compartmentalize it into 1,000 different categories, that's the wrong approach. And that's the way the community is today, with a different buzz phrase for every tiny divergence in your orientation or gender. That just makes us even more obsessed with labels than before, isn't that counterproductive to the cause? Instead, I favor the broadening of labels to encompass a wide variety of related concepts. Tenzin Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925867097747621833noreply@blogger.com