A single unified LGBTQ+ conversation

I mean, there are characteristics I find more attractive than others, but that's for men and women.

I'm solely attracted to femininity.

So mostly girls.

I'd be willing to date cis, trans, whatever, as long as they were feminine.

As a trans girl myself avoiding trans girls as dating partners would be hypocritical.

edited 27th Sep '14 10:47:24 AM by ElectricNova

Technically speaking I should be classified as pan because I'm attracted to transgender persons as well as females and males. It's just it sounds so... pretentious that I avoid that label whenever possible.

Oh hey, I guess that's what I am too, then.

edited 27th Sep '14 10:54:49 AM by bRaHiAn1

Muk - that's the thing. For me, I have no issue with women unless they're TERFs, otherwise sexist or abrasive. They could be a butch aggressive Rugby playing musclebound wrestler of a woman, and I'd still date them as easily as a prissy, pink loving princess who goes around delicately and has the softest voice ever.

A man to me generally has to be intellectually capable, able to understand what I mean and generally agreeable, for one. If a woman's not that, I can work with it provided there's something else I like about her. As just as she's not a TERF, sexist or generally abrasive to me, I'll not mind.

(I will also say though that I'd rather date a transwoman no matter where she is when it comes to her transition than any Cis TERF. A transwoman who has just started and is working on it I'll date because to me, she is a woman. So...)

edited 27th Sep '14 10:51:20 AM by RatherRandomRachel

I see.

I am heteroromantic. Or perhaps pan-heteroromantic. I only get emotionally attracted to people I can think of as female.

I am sexually heteroflexible. I'm mainly attracted to female bodies, but I have a type in male forms and I could go outside that for a transwoman I was romantically involved with who didn't look exceptionally masculine.

edited 27th Sep '14 11:21:56 AM by TParadox

Labels and orientation talk are boring. Why can't people just like who they like and go on.

Not this again.

Labels are really really useful. They give you something to identify with and to know that you're not some kind of freak of nature or whatever.

(not trying to sound agressive, if I did, sorry)

edited 27th Sep '14 3:12:30 PM by ElectricNova

Nice avvie Nova ;p

Am I the only person here who's actually pan? Because if I like the person behind it I can be happy with anything.

I use pan-heteroromantic to describe myself because there's not really a good term for "preferring one gender, but okay with trans".

I said I was pan.

I just have a preference for women.

My boyfriend is pissing me off.

Though this night is pretty good.

Hey everybody, have a question for you.

So I'm taking a legal class, and we're on the subject of frivolous lawsuits. This is an online class in which we post replies to a class discussion board. One person has taken the stance that businesses have every right to refuse service to gay couples because of religious principles. I disagree. Obviously. But I'm having a bit of trouble articulating exactly why this is unacceptable. Parallels to racism and Jim Crow laws aside, what other points could I make on this?

Probably not going to have any impact on this classmate's mind, but I don't want her assertions to go unchallenged.

I don't really know either. A private business owner would have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, pig-headed or not, and also the right to be boycotted for exercising that right.

I'd say it kind of depends on the service, myself. Like, a bakery doesn't want to serve you? Fine, whatever. Your lost sale. An insurance company doesn't want to cover you because of it? That's... problematic to say the least. But that can be said to be more a matter of a service or product being important enough for me to care...

I think the spread is kind of the same as like, which companies are and are not allowed to strike. Teachers, doctors, policemen, etc. kinda can't go on strike because of just how necessary they are. You can't really deny people that service over an extended period of time because you aren't pleased with things - although they should absolutely do what they need to to get what they want. Anyways, my point is that certain services or products are too important to hold from people because it puts them at serious risk, or gives them a significant detriment... it's basically conspiring to turn them from technically second-class citizens to actually, actively oppressed people. I mean... moreso than we already are. It would not be unreasonable to classify denying medical service, ensurance, education etc. on the basis of sexuality as a hate crime.

In general though? I... kind of have to agree. It's absolutely the right of a small business to choose who they do and don't serve, be it because of orientation or anything they value... and fuck themselves over by losing sales and risking word of that getting out and having people boycott them. Maybe not terrible for someone like walmart, but a small company is gonna suffer for it. Although I would of course be delighted to have my mind changed on that.

edited 27th Sep '14 6:10:25 PM by kegisak

I've begun to worry that i won't know what the word "trans" really means.

I am a transwoman, but i find it really hard to accept that I was ever male, but if I wasn't ever really male, except for my body, am i really transitioning? do i even count?

This might just be OCD, but.... I keep having to say the definition of transgender over and over in my head, and now i'm worried that i won't know.

Help.

The "transition" refers to the physical (and often times social) aspects, not mental. If you were never mentally male but you were assigned male at birth then of course you are transgender and is a really strong sign that transitioning is right for you.

Or to use weird internet phrasing, that's pretty much as "trans" as one can get and you are definitely "trans enough".

edited 28th Sep '14 8:08:31 AM by death_vlk

And to add to that - those who can't decide at the moment but do later decide they aren't what they were assigned are also transgender. I've seen plenty of cases where they can't decide but do later, for varying reasons.

Remember the term itself lends some elasticity, don't be so dead set on one hard definition.

Of course, I didn't mean to imply that those who decide later aren't trans. I have recently started finding more people who only "found out" (for lack of better phrasing) they were trans later in life.

Thanks, you two....

But I can't stop myself from constantly repeating the definition of trans in my head, it's become an obsession.

What is even the definition of trans? It's changed over the years, some definitions necessarily include surgery while others don't. Plus in my case, the (medical) definition for FT Ms used to include that the person must be attracted to females in order to be "true", which means I wouldn't actually be trans, which is total bullshit.

Because people have it in their heads that Gender Equals Sexuality.

Which is just such a massive pile of bullshit that it's not even funny.

This post has been removed by the person who posted it. Kinda. There's no 'delete post' button.

But anyway, just ignore this.

edited 29th Sep '14 6:44:55 AM by KatanaCat