Gyrator53 wrote:
DavidB1986 wrote:
I think the rule of thumb should be, if you are unsure as to whether a term is correct or offensive, don't use it.
This is an impossible task.
We keep playing semantic hopscotch with terminology for the various labels we use for people. It's impossible to get away from some form of labelling - there are about 7 billion of us after all so treating every one as a totally special case is a bit tricky.
However, we start off with one term, have a small minority use it pejoratively until it becomes a term of abuse. We then change the name only for the same a**holes to pick up on the new term and transform that into something derogatory - and so we go on.
That is how the word 'special' became a term of abuse FFS. You can't fix this by semantics - only by changing people's attitudes.
How is thinking about what you say before you say it suddenly become a form of abuse. If I was unsure where a term or word I had heard was offensive or wrong, I wouldn't use it. At the very least i'd research it before I actually used it in anyway. Is that really so hard or so wrong to do?
I would never use words I don't understand in a conversation unless I know exactly what it meant, and whether it could be construed as offensive. I don't understand how what I said could be so wrong?
Would like to know where these gender labels come from. Is it just a little of people wanting the individuality or to be part of an elite group? Who categorises the official gender or actually makes the official term? Surely there can't be that many? I mean if you actually make a gender for someone who finds 4x4's sexually attractive then that gets into the realms of silliness.
Stuburns wrote:
Would like to know where these gender labels come from. Is it just a little of people wanting the individuality or to be part of an elite group? Who categorises the official gender or actually makes the official term? Surely there can't be that many? I mean if you actually make a gender for someone who finds 4x4's sexually attractive then that gets into the realms of silliness.
There generally is a name for sexual attraction to most things. There wouldn't be a specifc name for someone who was attracted to 4x4's (lol) but there is a name for those who are sexually aroused by cars and machinery etc (I don't know what it's called but it is a very real thing!)
David if I had to seriously think about every sentence before I said it it would make for a long boring conversation. People are to quick to take offense and then to judge. If you take offense for someone being a little uneducated then I would take offense at you also.
Stuburns wrote:
Would like to know where these gender labels come from. Is it just a little of people wanting the individuality or to be part of an elite group? Who categorises the official gender or actually makes the official term? Surely there can't be that many? I mean if you actually make a gender for someone who finds 4x4's sexually attractive then that gets into the realms of silliness.
It works a bit of both ways. But the groups aren't little at all. Most sex ed books and gender books are using these terms more and mo9re, they are used a lot in various articles too, plus people use them at sex and kink events, as well as just gatherings =).
There are loads, trust me. As a sex educator, I am always surpised in many ways that there are so many, but also feel that many groups are left out too.
Humans like labels, it helps when trying to explain ones self not only to others, but also to themselves too. Say I spent all my life thinking and feeling and just knowing this: I love a and b, who are both the same gener, and love c too, who is a different gener, B and c love each other as well as me, but a doesn't love b and c just me. I also love D who isn't one gender, but three, male and female and something inbetween. D loves me and likes C.
Ok here we have poly relationship mixed with non-binary gender roles, as well as bisexuals, plus gender fluidity.
and heck with the terms being used and people knowing them, that could all be made a lot more similar, easier to understand, and easier to tell others, rather than giving a full sexual and relationships health history.
As for the 4x4's I would actually call the person a little crazy with possible issues. I wouldn't give them a label or gender for the fact they did it. It really is inconsequential. PC wackiness at its best.
Stuburns wrote:
As for the 4x4's I would actually call the person a little crazy with possible issues. I wouldn't give them a label or gender for the fact they did it. It really is inconsequential. PC wackiness at its best.
There's an erotic book with shorts based on real life people, and a woman who loved cars sexually, was one of them.
Please remember there can be a fetish for most things and that not all fetishes are sexual in the say way you would feel and express. Plus that I know many Asexual people who still have fetishes too.
People really should just do what they do without the label. Don't think I have ever had to fill a form and put 'straight' nor have I ever been asked if I'm this or that and I'm guessing neither has anybody else. Who actually gets upset if the gender label is correct or not the person themselves or the person who knows they have just got someone's gender wrong?
Stuburns wrote:
People really should just do what they do without the label. Don't think I have ever had to fill a form and put 'straight' nor have I ever been asked if I'm this or that and I'm guessing neither has anybody else. Who actually gets upset if the gender label is correct or not the person themselves or the person who knows they have just got someone's gender wrong?
I have, for many things, from online, to far more serious forms to do with work and housing and study.
Labels aren't just labels to many. They are them and them are them, almost one and the same. Some also use labels when they switch between things from lets say work life to social, or even events, or even multiple jobs. Labels are used not just gender-wise nor just sexualy within society. You may be an office worker by day but have a paper round in the morning, you could also be a wife in the evening or a grandmother - all these are labels, a few are often linked within gender roles within society (and not just UK).
Labels help, and dismissing them completely can only lead to a negative, so I have found from experience, and many other reasons.
Many people get upset. I get upset when I am refered to as a girl. I am born a woman and bdress as one a lot (well what a woman would wear in western society), but I have a very male stance in life, and sometimes I am in the middle of both male and female. I often tell people nd have done for 8 years now that I do not see myself as 100% female even if I look it on the outside.
But people would use only your name. That's the only label I respond to. I'm not labelled engineer or golfer. I'm not labelled as 'my straight friend' when introduced to others and I don't introduce myself as 'hi I'm straight'. I could understand a derogatory term would be something like 'chickdick' but ladyboy is widely used and accepted by many and in conversation most of the population would understand what is meant and the conversation should carry on from there but if someone was to stop thAt conversation to put that person right on the correct assignment I would feel worse of the person making the correction than the person making the mistake.
Stuburns wrote:
David if I had to seriously think about every sentence before I said it it would make for a long boring conversation. People are to quick to take offense and then to judge. If you take offense for someone being a little uneducated then I would take offense at you also.
You are really reading way to much into this. Put it in the context of this forum.
I am not saying you literally need to analyse EVERY SINGLE THING that you say. Christ, that would be ridiculous.
I am also unsure at where you got me taking offense at someone being a little uneducated? At what point did I say that? All I said was that I personally would not talk about subjects, or use words that I didn't understand unless I looked it up first. How the hell did you get me calling anyone uneducated? Please stop twisting my words.
I'd also like to state that first off, the media product probably asked, or propted the use of the word for views - this happens a lot. I write sex articles but have been asked to appear in other media, but every so often you are asked to say or bring to life certain terms or activities just to gain the network viewers.
Secondly, ladyboy isn't a word I'd use because I know many people who are mid-surgery from becoming one gender to the other and take on extra work to get their recoinstruction finished.
Next it isn't a term I'd use as ladybody refers to those who you are defining as so eithe male or female, or stuck in the middle, yet not another gender. Plus also many only define as male or female too.
There are also some people who have surgery and actually see themselves as the sex they were born, but desire te body modification.
There's just so many.
But generally in the circle of people in the know, it is a term only those in the know and things who can use works like this, and even then it's tricky.
Hi David. It wasn't aimed at you. The second statement should have been a new paragraph and a generalisation.
Really a person is a person and although we like to put that person under a label because of a difference are we doing more harm? Labels can just offer more ammo to those that choose to cause pain.
I find it a little bit intriuging as well, but think it might be one on the long list that stays as a fantasy...
DavidB1986 wrote:
Gyrator53 wrote:
DavidB1986 wrote:
I think the rule of thumb should be, if you are unsure as to whether a term is correct or offensive, don't use it.
This is an impossible task.
We keep playing semantic hopscotch with terminology for the various labels we use for people. It's impossible to get away from some form of labelling - there are about 7 billion of us after all so treating every one as a totally special case is a bit tricky.
However, we start off with one term, have a small minority use it pejoratively until it becomes a term of abuse. We then change the name only for the same a**holes to pick up on the new term and transform that into something derogatory - and so we go on.
That is how the word 'special' became a term of abuse FFS. You can't fix this by semantics - only by changing people's attitudes.
How is thinking about what you say before you say it suddenly become a form of abuse. If I was unsure where a term or word I had heard was offensive or wrong, I wouldn't use it. At the very least i'd research it before I actually used it in anyway. Is that really so hard or so wrong to do?
I would never use words I don't understand in a conversation unless I know exactly what it meant, and whether it could be construed as offensive. I don't understand how what I said could be so wrong?
Well, if you look at just one word you will see what I mean:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spastic
As you can from this link the change in the status of this word has change in the UK (but not in much of the rest of the English-speaking world) over a relative short period of time. Certainly, when I was young it had no more negative connotations than, say, "asthmatic" currently has. And there are parts of the World where this is still the case. Therefore calling someone for use of such terms depends on context and, most importantly, intent.
My other point is that, by retreating from the correct use of such terms in the face of their abuse by a small minority we give credence to their misuse and arm them with a whole vocabulary specifically for their use rather than facing them down.
With regard to this thread it seems clear to me that the OP intended no disrespect by his terminology and that calling him for it was misjudged.
Me or my partners wouldn't personally.
I know a couple of transgenders of both sex. Not as close friends but as acquaintances. I am straight so obviously a female would never attract me but I would certainly have a relationship with a male transgender. It takes a lot more then a penis to make a man!
As for the housemaid bit.. I don't get it? And I haven't actually seen the show you're referring to.. It doesn't sound like my cup of tea though. xx
I agree with everyone that when you are not knowledgable about something it is very hard to work out what is unoffensive and what is offensive. In this particular case I feel a transgendered woman is a woman.. Plain and simple. I am not close enough to anyone who is transgender to know whether that attitude is offensive or not though. x