# How many LGBT+ members are on this site?



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Tropes said:


> In that spirit, I am curious, have you @*Simpson17866* (Or other asexuals that you might know of) experienced prejudice within the LGBT+ community?
> 
> It would be more surprising to me if the answer is no, since on the surface there doesn't appear to be a visible difference between someone having an asexual orientation and an otherwise sexually repressed individual, I almost expect you guys to get some flack for that, especially given the stereotypical mental association between the sexually uptight repressed conservative and historical LGB oppression.


I never have personally felt prejudiced about my asexual orientation or been the target of prejudice. But I have seen a whole lot of shit being flung from all sides of lgbt+ (mainly tumblr, and sometimes reddit). Asexuals hating on other orientations. Gays hating on asexuals. All kinds of hate coming from each other, lbgt+ is like civil war zone. Lots of "gatekeeping". Then you get people going in the complete opposite direction, who are spouting that "you're valid and special and I love you" malarkey. I swear its like they're trying to brainwash you or something. 

I don't associate with the asexual community or lgbt+ because I feel like associating with them is a personal declaration of victimhood, and I refuse to think of myself in that manner. I don't like lgbt+ or the asexual community because their politics and mindset clashes with mine.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

crazitaco said:


> I never have personally felt prejudiced about my orientation. But I have seen a whole lot shit being thrown around from all sides of lgbt+ (mainly tumblr, and sometimes reddit). Asexuals hating on other orientations. Gays hating on asexuals. All kinds of hate coming from each other, lbgt+ is like civil war zone. Lots of "gatekeeping". Then you get people going in the complete opposite direction, who are spouting that "you're valid and special and I love you" malarkey. I swear its like they're trying to brainwash you or something.
> 
> I don't associate with the asexual community or lgbt+ because I feel like associating with them is a personal declaration of victimhood, and I refuse to think of myself in that manner. I don't like lgbt+ or the asexual community because their politics and mindset clashes with mine.


 Ouch :sad:

I just see LGBT+ as a personal description first, group description second.


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

I'm bisexual, and not transgender, but not cisgender. (tbh I hate the word "cisgender").


----------



## MolaMola (Jul 28, 2012)

(and I fucking HATE Tumblr SJW attack dogs.)


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

I don't like the LGBT community politics at large, either. The only reason I like going to LGBT spaces is to make it easier to find a potential significant other (as I don't really like online dating).

Otherwise....eh. I'm all for left-leaning politics, but the SJW mindset can take it a bit too far. I stay away from the community on Tumblr, though sadly these people can be sometimes found in person as well.


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)

I identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community because I literally am LGBTQ... But I'm not actively a "member". I don't go to bars/clubs/events whatever. That's more because I just don't enjoy being amongst huge masses of drunk people. Gay or not. But I identify as androgynous female.. People call me sir about as often as they call me ma'am. I don't care either way and don't correct people about it. I don't understand how people can get so upset about being referred to by certain pronouns. Like who fucking cares. I don't care about anything as much as young people care about being called zhe or zhim.

If someone asks me to call them by a certain pronoun, sure no problem. I'm all about killing gender roles and stereotypes. But people getting all salty about pronouns while I'm checking out at the grocery store, give me a break. You look like a woman, I'm sorry, you have visible breasts and feminine facial features, I'm sorry I didn't realize you were a goddamn zhim.


----------



## OP (Oct 22, 2016)

I'm cisgender, heteroromantic, and asexual. I voted cisgender and straight because I'm straight in the sense that I'm only ever been romantically attracted to people who presented as male (they could've been closeted trans girls or nonbinary people, I don't know for sure).

There's some debate about whether cishet ace and cishet aro (aromantic + heterosexual) people are LGBT+, and I don't consider myself LGBT+.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Why is cisgender the definite norm though, instead of are you cis OR trans? It seems very off-putting to answer a poll where it says are you cisgender OR *not* cisgender? Like wtf?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Why is cisgender the definite norm though, instead of are you cis OR trans? It seems very off-putting to answer a poll where it says are you cisgender OR *not* cisgender? Like wtf?


 Because my understanding is that cis and trans are not the only options, and I wanted to cover all possibilities instead of just two.


----------



## BearRun (Mar 3, 2017)

Straight CIS. Which seems to be a minority at my school. :laughing:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> Because my understanding is that cis and trans are not the only options, and I wanted to cover all possibilities instead of just two.


Then what other options are there? I mean, either you are cis and being NOT cis pretty much means being trans, seeing how they are antonymous?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Cis? Straight. I am male by birth and I have never felt sexual attraction to the same sex. 

Having said this, I do not feel an overwhelming urge to strictly adhere to all the social stereotypes attributed to males of the species.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Then what other options are there? I mean, either you are cis and being NOT cis pretty much means being trans, seeing how they are antonymous?


 I was under the impression that "trans" referred specifically to "born with a body that is either male or female, but being a person who is the other," which would not include people who do not identify as _either_ binary option.

Are you saying that it's more general than that?

EDIT: I just got back from Google and would like to apologize for derping all over you :frustrating:


----------



## heymoon (Nov 26, 2016)

i'm not 100% sure about my gender but i do know i'm more feminine aligned. i'm also bi.


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

Not to mention, cisgender means that your gender identity matches the body you are assigned. IE; I'm cisgender because I have a female body and consider myself female.

It doesn't have anything to do with gender stereotypes though. I'm not feminine at all whatsoever, yet I'm still a woman. I like female pronouns and I like my female body. I just don't think you have to be feminine to be a "real" woman.


----------



## Starflier (Feb 16, 2017)

Not cis. Just a bisexual woman in possession of female organs.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> I myself am cisgender (male) but not straight: asexual/aromantic












Asexuality is completely distinct and separate from LGBT. You are just trying to claim membership among the ranks of this currently trendy group. I'm sorry, Simpson, your cold aromantic self is not cool enough to be a part of that celebrated club of victimized martyrs.

LGBT is a distinct group of "sexuals." Asexuals are removed from all sexuals, no matter which orientation.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Dante Scioli said:


> Asexuality is completely distinct and separate from LGBT. You are just trying to claim membership among the ranks of this currently trendy group. I'm sorry, Simpson, your cold aromantic self is not cool enough to be a part of that celebrated club of victimized martyrs.
> 
> LGBT is a distinct group of "sexuals." Asexuals are removed from all sexuals, no matter which orientation.


 Huh?


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> Huh?


Finally, some honesty.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Dante Scioli said:


> Finally, some honesty.


 ... So moving right along:

The personality traits measured by the Big Five personality system are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. A person can have Low ratings on any or all of these traits, and/or a person can have High ratings on any or all of these traits.

If a person who is asexual/aromantic "does not have an orientation" because they're not interested in anybody in those ways, then wouldn't a person with Low ratings on all 5 OCEAN traits "not have a Big Five personality" for the same reason? "How can they have an OCEAN type when they're not O, C, E, A *or* N?"


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

crazitaco said:


> In the graph metaphor, we aren't at 0,0 origin. 0,0 origin would be normies. We're in the negative numbers, while positive numbers would indicate some sort of a nymphomaniac.


 Well, if we're going to take it that far, then our Kinsey score is 3–√(–27) :wink:


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Simpson17866 said:


> Well, if we're going to take it that far, then our Kinsey score is 3–√(–27) :wink:


Omg simpson now is not the time for math


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Does it matter?

I'd be much more interested in finding out how many atheists there are on this site.

I wonder if LGBT members are by definition atheists/agnostics.... They kind of have to be as all standard religions deny their existence.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Peter said:


> Does it matter?
> 
> I'd be much more interested in finding out how many atheists there are on this site.
> 
> I wonder if LGBT members are by definition atheists/agnostics.... They kind of have to be as all standard religions deny their existence.


Not really. It's funny, but I've actually known more gay atheists than transgender ones. Perhaps because there are more references to same-sex behaviors? There might be one reference to "cross dressing", but trans men and women aren't doing that, necessarily, and things like hormones and srs certainly didn't exist until fairly recently.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

OP said:


> But you said zero is a speed, right?


A slug has zero elbows. A slug's zero elbows are oriented in <does not compute, invalid statement> direction.


----------



## OP (Oct 22, 2016)

Dante Scioli said:


> A slug has zero elbows. A slug's zero elbows are oriented in <does not compute, invalid statement> direction.





Dante Scioli said:


> <does not compute, invalid statement>


... I think a salt shaker might help solve this dilemma.


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

What if someone is gender-confused? I say that because, honestly, I've never understood the "I identify as a certain gender" thing. Does being a cis female mean you find yourself relating to things that are stereo-typically feminine (otherwise, how else would someone know if they identify more as male or female? That's not me trying to be sardonic)? And if so, what would the difference be between a cis female and a born-male who exhibits "feminine" traits but who considers themselves to be cis male?

Perhaps the fact that I don't inherently understand means I'm gender neutral. But I'm really not sure.

As for my actual sexuality, I'm at least bisexual, if not a demisexual who simply doesn't see gender.


----------



## kismetie (Oct 17, 2013)

cisgender female loser, self identifying queer person.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Skittles Berry Punch said:


> What if someone is gender-confused? I say that because, honestly, I've never understood the "I identify as a certain gender" thing. Does being a cis female mean you find yourself relating to things that are stereo-typically feminine (otherwise, how else would someone know if they identify more as male or female? That's not me trying to be sardonic)? And if so, what would the difference be between a cis female and a born-male who exhibits "feminine" traits but who considers themselves to be cis male?
> 
> Perhaps the fact that I don't inherently understand means I'm gender neutral. But I'm really not sure.
> 
> As for my actual sexuality, I'm at least bisexual, if not a demisexual who simply doesn't see gender.


Hmm, I don't think so. We could say there are certain traits that separate men from women, aside from biological, ie men are interested in sports, cars, girls, but I don't think those alone lead someone to saying "I am a man", otherwise just about every girl who isn't a barbie doll would come out as trans. Personally, I don't think there is this black-and-white world where you're either trans or cis: stereotypical or non-conforming. Terms like "butch", "sissy", etc. existed long before the trans movement was a thing.

And I personally think that if you seriously question your gender for a period of time, the chance of not being cis are pretty high. It's just something most can't relate to. At all. Perhaps being non-straight is correlated with gender, since you see a lot of old writings of gay men and women being "more like" straight women and men. At one time, it was thought they had the opposite sex's souls in their bodies, and I believe some of the first operations were designed to "cure" homosexuality, or at least redirect it to a more socially acceptable route...

There are feminine men, feminine women, and feminine folk who are neither. Cis, trans. Gay, straight. Everything in-between. Ditto for masculine. And neutral. Besides, what one considers masculine or feminine is pretty subjective, so I've long stopped trying to categorize everything as falling into one side or the other. Perhaps it's harder for women (and AFAB folk in general), since tomboys and the like are socially acceptable, so you have more experimentation and blurring of lines. This makes it tough for some to come out. I'd say it has more to do with how you see yourself.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> Yes, I do. The final sentence illustrates that the difference between asexuals and LGBT is the same as the difference between asexuals and heterosexuals. Lumping them all together is lazy.


But that tells me nothing; you say it's wrong but not why it is. The reason heterosexuality is excluded from the lgbtq is because it's a normative sexuality and is dominant within the sexual hierarchy. It makes non-hetereosexuals eg gay, bi etc., a minority group that is submissive to heterosexuals. 

Are you saying this definition does not apply to asexuals and if so, why? What other group would then better represent asexuals and their rights?

Edit
I managed to find the post where you think that lgbtq is about pro sexuality, so now your argument makes more sense. However, the final questions I pose to you remain, especially in light of the definition of the lgbtq that I offered you. The lgbtq isn't necessarily a group based on a system of classification based on being identified with _a_sexuality, but is a political movement based on of how expressing sexualities or gender identities are placed in a system of power that allows the subsequent abuse towards anyone that has a non-hetereosexual and/or trans identity. 

How do you stand in relation to that? Why do you think that the lgbtq is purely a classification system meant to describe other sexualities than heterosexuality instead of a political movement with a focus on activitism and social justice?


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

Skittles Berry Punch said:


> What if someone is gender-confused? I say that because, honestly, I've never understood the "I identify as a certain gender" thing. Does being a cis female mean you find yourself relating to things that are stereo-typically feminine (otherwise, how else would someone know if they identify more as male or female? That's not me trying to be sardonic)? And if so, what would the difference be between a cis female and a born-male who exhibits "feminine" traits but who considers themselves to be cis male?
> 
> Perhaps the fact that I don't inherently understand means I'm gender neutral. But I'm really not sure.
> 
> As for my actual sexuality, I'm at least bisexual, if not a demisexual who simply doesn't see gender.


No, it doesn't mean that. I honestly don't know any cis woman who fits their stereotypical gender roles; if anything the feminine gender role is honestly pretty sexist and limiting. That's why you see feminists arguing against these things yet still being women.

I hate stereotypical girly crap. Yet, I'm a cis woman because I have female biological traits and I like/enjoy them. I would not be happy with male genitals, with a flat chest, with facial hair, and with a deep voice. I wouldn't want to be called "he/him". I just want to be seen as a woman is who allowed to dislike stereotypical girly things. I want equal rights, not to be a man.

Likewise, there are actually trans people who don't follow their gender roles. I've known trans men (female-to-male people) who walk around wearing dresses, make-up, and liking extremely girly things- and these people aren't even cis! They still consider themselves trans because they have large amounts of dysphoria- they don't want breasts, or female voices, or estrogen. They just want to be men that occasionally are allowed to crossdress.

There's no such thing as a cis person who follows all gender roles. Every single human being on this planet has both masculine and feminine traits.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> But that tells me nothing; you say it's wrong but not why it is. The reason heterosexuality is excluded from the lgbtq is because it's a normative sexuality and is dominant within the sexual hierarchy. It makes non-hetereosexuals eg gay, bi etc., a minority group that is submissive to heterosexuals.
> 
> Are you saying this definition does not apply to asexuals and if so, why? What other group would then better represent asexuals and their rights?
> 
> ...


I completely reject the notion that LGBT as a term doesn't have anything to do with sexuality and is instead just a broad alliance of otherwise unrelated minority groups. If it were, as you say, a "political movement with a focus on activism and social justice" rather than "purely a classification system meant to describe other sexualities," then it would be equally sensical to include handicapped people or blasians or pygmies or any kind of group you can imagine.

LGBT is a term with a specific meaning; it is a collection of similar sexualities. Let's keep words simple so we can manage to use them and understand one another please. When we tack on ten extra layers of meaning, words become unusable and new words must be coined to fill the function of the corrupted word.

As a disclaimer though, yes, I realize many people are quite fond of activism and social justice. That has nothing to do with anything, but I can already hear the replies brimming with eagerness to remind me of this fact as if I am not already painfully aware.

LGBT is a catch-all term for "queer" sexual groups. Asexuals are not a sexual group. Asexuals are not a "queer" group either. It's entirely possible to be both queer and asexual, but asexuals are not by definition queer. So for both reasons it's incorrect and lazy to lump asexuals in with LGBT.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Dante Scioli said:


> I completely reject the notion that LGBT as a term doesn't have anything to do with sexuality and is instead just a broad alliance of otherwise unrelated minority groups. If it were, as you say, a "political movement with a focus on activism and social justice" rather than "purely a classification system meant to describe other sexualities," then it would be equally sensical to include handicapped people or blasians or pygmies or any kind of group you can imagine.
> 
> LGBT is a term with a specific meaning; it is a collection of similar sexualities. Let's keep words simple so we can manage to use them and understand one another please. When we tack on ten extra layers of meaning, words become unusable and new words must be coined to fill the function of the corrupted word.
> 
> ...


 Imagine that I ask your favorite color, and you tell me you don't have one. Is that "not an answer" about your color preferences :confused2:


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

Librarylady said:


> No, it doesn't mean that. I honestly don't know any cis woman who fits their stereotypical gender roles; if anything the feminine gender role is honestly pretty sexist and limiting. That's why you see feminists arguing against these things yet still being women.
> 
> I hate stereotypical girly crap. Yet, I'm a cis woman because I have female biological traits and I like/enjoy them. I would not be happy with male genitals, with a flat chest, with facial hair, and with a deep voice. I wouldn't want to be called "he/him". I just want to be seen as a woman is who allowed to dislike stereotypical girly things. I want equal rights, not to be a man.
> 
> ...


Thank you for explaining. I've never had a very clear answer to that question, because when it comes to things like how gender may or may not effect your personality, the lines become blurred (like how you have plenty of women who are just as or more logic-minded than plenty of men.) So, I wasn't sure if being cis meant you just like the parts of yourself that ARE directly correlated to gender, or if those who are cis believe in gender roles and feel those gender roles are actually science-based. As someone who's always felt pretty neutral about their own body parts and such, I didn't understand how someone could have any feelings about whether or not they had a penis or a vagina. So I guess I just overlooked that. 

What you've said has also given me a lot to think about. Thank you, again.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> I completely reject the notion that LGBT as a term doesn't have anything to do with sexuality and is instead just a broad alliance of otherwise unrelated minority groups. If it were, as you say, a "political movement with a focus on activism and social justice" rather than "purely a classification system meant to describe other sexualities," then it would be equally sensical to include handicapped people or blasians or pygmies or any kind of group you can imagine.
> 
> LGBT is a term with a specific meaning; it is a collection of similar sexualities. Let's keep words simple so we can manage to use them and understand one another please. When we tack on ten extra layers of meaning, words become unusable and new words must be coined to fill the function of the corrupted word.
> 
> ...


Except the commonly shared experience is that society deems these sexualities and gender identities and expressions transgressive. You are free to deny it but doing so means that your opinion is simply an opinion and not based on fact. If it was simply a system of classification, then why include transgender and sometimes even intersex? The transgender experience has nothing to do with sexuality, and neither does intersex. 

Just because *you* don't like vocabulary connotation of a word by "tacking on extra layers of meaning" which seemingly would "corrupt" the word, it doesn't mean that you have the right to rewrite a word and its actual meaning and use in common speech to be something it's not. 

Your idea of what's correct or incorrect is simply not relevant here, because your idea of the lgbtq does not represent how the lgbtq understands and defines itself. It's a social movement striving to accomplish social justice via acts of social activism. 

Denying this means denying facts. It's also quite ludicrous that you, as a non-member and non-representative of the lgbtq, thinks you know better about what it is than actual members and representatives.


----------



## platorepublic (Dec 27, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Except the commonly shared experience is that society deems these sexualities and gender identities and expressions transgressive. You are free to deny it but doing so means that your opinion is simply an opinion and not based on fact. If it was simply a system of classification, then why include transgender and sometimes even intersex? The transgender experience has nothing to do with sexuality, and neither does intersex.
> 
> Just because *you* don't like vocabulary connotation of a word by "tacking on extra layers of meaning" which seemingly would "corrupt" the word, it doesn't mean that you have the right to rewrite a word and its actual meaning and use in common speech to be something it's not.
> 
> ...


Super hot avatar. FF?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

platorepublic said:


> Super hot avatar. FF?


Yeah it's Final Fantasy.


----------



## platorepublic (Dec 27, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Yeah it's Final Fantasy.


Too bad the guys never have body hair.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

platorepublic said:


> Too bad the guys never have body hair.


Personally I prefer it that way.


----------



## PenguinX (Mar 10, 2017)

I'm Female Agender (not cisgender), Asexual (not straight), and Andro-Scolioromantic. Don't know if that fits into the LGBT+ Community, but I don't identify under it.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Nabbit said:


> But they do get attention for it. My room mate is asexual and she got a lot of shit for it in the past from an ex-boyfriend. She didn't know she was asexual at the time and so couldn't explain herself to him.
> 
> It would be weird to a lot of people if someone didn't want sex, among other forms of touch like holding hands with a lover. Even if they're technically not a sexuality they deserve to be a part of the LGBT.


I knew somebody would say this. Snore. You realize I was speaking about society, right? Public perceptions?

The disconnect here is the public/private distinction. What you disclose to your boyfriend is in private. Your private world only gets exposed to people who are very close to you, i.e. people whose attention you _already have_. If you'll notice, I was speaking about "society" deciding whether or not a person is queer and what actions people take to "draw [society's] attention to themselves."

-Your friend already had her boyfriend's attention.
-Her boyfriend is not society.

So yeah, no.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Then let me quote you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just READ THE WHOLE THING. IT WILL MAKE SENSE IF YOU DON'T TAKE SNIPPETS OUT OF CONTEXT. I promise. I promise, you can understand what I'm saying without making me write ten sentences to explain every sentence. That sort of recursion is a nightmare I no longer have patience for.


----------



## Santa Gloss (Feb 23, 2015)

Librarylady said:


> It also might be kind of interesting to see if there's an MBTI type link with LGBT. Maybe the community attracts certain types more than others, or maybe different types express their gender and sexuality differently. I wonder what others think.





Simpson17866 said:


> I'm thinking it's probably a sampling error that, on average, people who identify as LGBT would be more committed to saying "yes" than people who don't would be committed to saying "no" (and I did link to this first on an LGBT thread, whereas I am not aware of there being a cis-straight thread), but that would certainly be interesting to explore if we had better numbers :happy:


Thought Catalog is not a scientific source, of course, but their MBTI writer did a survey of all the types and each type's sexual orientation breakdown + thoughts on hookup culture + general sex commentary. I Asked Each Personality Type To Open Up About Their Sexuality – Here’s What They Had To Say | Thought Catalog

Copy pasting the results here from their 16 different pages: 

*Intuitive types:*


*INTPs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 134 participants sampled:

69% identified as heterosexual
18% identified as bisexual or pansexual
6% identified as homosexual
2% identified as asexual
5% identified as ‘other.’

*ENTPs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 107 participants sampled:

74% identified as heterosexual
19% identified as bisexual or pansexual
6% identified as homosexual
1% identified as ‘other.’*INTJs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 203 participants sampled:

77% identified as heterosexual
13% identified as bisexual or pansexual
4% identified as homosexual
4% identified as asexual
2% identified as ‘other.’*ENTJs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 64 participants sampled:

70% identified as heterosexual
20% identified as bisexual or pansexual
5% identified as homosexual
2% identified as asexual
3% identified as ‘other.’

*INFPs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 225 participants sampled:

68% identified as heterosexual
24% identified as bisexual or pansexual
5% identified as homosexual
1% identified as asexual
2% identified as ‘other‘

*ENFPs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 445 participants sampled:

75% identified as heterosexual
19% identified as bisexual or pansexual
4% identified as homosexual.
2% identified as ‘other.’*ENFJs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 76 participants sampled:

76% identified as heterosexual
14% identified as bisexual or pansexual
7% identified as homosexual
1% identified as asexual
2% identified as ‘other‘*INFJs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 280 participants sampled:

73% identified as heterosexual
19% identified as bisexual or pansexual
4% identified as homosexual
4% identified as other


*Sensors:*

*SP types*


_Unfortunately, we did not receive enough ESTP responses to deem any of the survey results significant.
_
*ESTPs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 10 participants sampled:

80% identified as heterosexual
20% identified as bisexual or pansexual_Unfortunately, we did not receive enough ISTP responses to deem any of the survey results significant._

*ISTPs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 23 participants sampled:

74% identified as heterosexual
13% identified as bisexual or pansexual
13% identified as ‘other.’

_Unfortunately, we did not receive enough ESFP responses to deem any of the survey results significant._

*ESFPs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 31 participants sampled:

81% identified as heterosexual
13% identified as bisexual or pansexual
6% identified as homosexual_Unfortunately, we did not receive enough ISFP responses to deem any of the survey results significant._

*ISFPs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 39 participants sampled:

90% identified as heterosexual
5% identified as bisexual or pansexual
2% identified as assexual
3% identified as other

*SJ types: 
*

_Unfortunately, we did not receive enough ESFJ responses to deem any of the survey results significant._

*ESFJs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 35 participants sampled:

80% identified as heterosexual
11% identified as bisexual or pansexual
3% identified as homosexual
6% identified as other

_Unfortunately, we did not receive enough ISFJ responses to deem any of the survey results significant._

*ISFJs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 35 participants sampled:

84% identified as heterosexual
8% identified as bisexual or pansexual
8% identified as homosexual_Unfortunately, we did not receive enough ESTJ responses to deem any of the survey results significant._

*ESTJs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 35 participants sampled:

80% identified as heterosexual
17% identified as bisexual or pansexual
3% identified as ‘other.’_Unfortunately, we did not receive enough ISTJ responses to deem any of the survey results significant._*

ISTJs And Sexual Orientation*

Of the 35 participants sampled:

74% identified as heterosexual
14% identified as bisexual or pansexual
3% identified as homosexual
3% identified as asexual
6% identified as ‘other.’


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

Syvelocin said:


> Cis bi.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if it's so much a link to being LGBT per se, but a link to open-mindedness and likeliness for sexual experimentation maybe. I have seen the latter mentioned in reference to some mbti types including my own, those that are more prone to question their sexuality and explore it, but wouldn't be able to point you in the right direction for more about that. But it would make a lot of sense why an Ne-dom especially with Fi wouldn't have as much issue with that, while the process for an LGBT Si-dom might take a little longer if it happens. Although that being said I know a pretty young heteroflexible ISFJ so who knows lol.


I'm a non-heterosexual Si-dom (ISTJ lady).

The reason I ask, is that I wonder if different types have different ways they've expressed their sexuality. For example, even though I personally don't believe that me being ISTJ contradicts me being a lesbian, my type itself makes me come off as someone who doesn't fit the typical "gay stereotype" one would expect.

Being ISTJ, I'm a bit traditional/conservative and I dislike change, but It's in different ways. I've never been anti-gay, but I've been a bit more sexually conservative- I like to take dating slow, go steady, and save physical contact for a more committed relationship. I've never experimented with my sexuality (as in I've never slept with or kissed girls, I've just always "known"). It kind of creeped me out when I heard people were experimenting with their sexuality to know, since it almost morally bothered me (not that I judge others for it, but that I don't like that me being gay means I would have to give my body around freely. I take my sexual encounters much more seriously, in the same way most heterosexual ISTJs do).

So I have the typical contradiction! I stay closeted around other ISTJ's since I don't know how "traditional" they are, but I also feel like I don't fit in the LGBT community since I'm not as over sexualized or sexually liberated as they are. Reading how ISTJ's form relationships made me understand my personality more during a time I felt weird as a conservative acting gay person.

Other SJ's I feel are probably closeted longer due to shame and not fitting the status quo.

Anyway, just some random thoughts. I would have posted it in the SJ forum, but I'd rather talk out LGBT issues here since I'm one of the few non-het SJ's here.


----------



## ShatteredHeart (Jul 11, 2014)

The title of this tread is going to skew the results, many cisgenders will just pass it by because of the wording. If you want an accurate representation, you should have asked "What is your sexuality?"


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

I say this:


Dante Scioli said:


> If you think about it, asexuals are well-integrated into mainstream society and do not receive "the queer eye," as it were. I mean, maybe if you bandy about the term "asexual" you'd raise some eyebrows, but if you simply state "I do not have sex because I do not want to have sex," that's quite normal and not queer.


Somehow you hear this:


Entropic said:


> You actually admit that saying that one is asexual and does not have an intrinsic desire for sex or feels sexual attraction the way others do does raise eyebrows, or as it were, people become the subject of the "queer look". That you try to burrow this one sentence by trying to reframe asexuality as being equivalent to celibacy etc. and therefore equal to it normativity, doesn't change the fact that you actually intrinsically recognize that asexuality is not a normative sexual orientation. Because that's exactly what you admit to, here.


Can you figure out the disconnect? Perhaps the phrase "*bandy about*" might shed some light on what I meant by "raise some eyebrows?" How about my deliberate selection of words when I said "*the term* asexual?" Are you possibly seeing my meaning now?

Let's unpack this, shall we? I claimed:
"_Bandying about_" "*the term*" asexual will raise some eyebrows.
Explaining in plain English that you don't want to have sex (which is the meaning of _the term_ "asexual") will be received as


> quite normal and not queer.


So therefore, I was saying the opposite of the words you were putting in my mouth. You tried to tell me I was saying that when an asexual person "comes out" and explains his/her sexuality (for lack of a better term), they are received as queer. Nope. Said the opposite of that.

It's only when you *BANDY ABOUT* *THE TERM* that people look at you funny.

That's because of *THE TERM*, not because of its meaning.

Can you think of any reasons why that might be?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

ShatteredHeart said:


> The title of this tread is going to skew the results, many cisgenders will just pass it by because of the wording. If you want an accurate representation, you should have asked "What is your sexuality?"


 That is becoming pretty clear, yes.


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

Dante Scioli said:


> I knew somebody would say this. Snore. You realize I was speaking about society, right? Public perceptions?
> 
> The disconnect here is the public/private distinction. What you disclose to your boyfriend is in private. Your private world only gets exposed to people who are very close to you, i.e. people whose attention you _already have_. If you'll notice, I was speaking about "society" deciding whether or not a person is queer and what actions people take to "draw [society's] attention to themselves."
> 
> ...


Most of society is ignorant of what asexuality is and if it even exists. So if everyone was taught what asexuality was, how would you know they wouldn't react the same way my friend's ex-boyfriend did? What if it was unacceptable to most of society?

I don't think there's enough people in society who know what asexuality is to say that society actually accepts it, or that it's not queer. You can't accept something if you're ignorant of its existence.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Nabbit said:


> Most of society is ignorant of what asexuality is and if it even exists. So if everyone was taught what asexuality was, how would you know they wouldn't react the same way my friend's ex-boyfriend did? What if it was unacceptable to most of society?
> 
> I don't think there's enough people in society who know what asexuality is to say that society actually accepts it, or that it's not queer. You can't accept something if you're ignorant of its existence.


People aren't ignorant of its existence though. They are ignorant of *THE TERM* "asexual," sure, because it's internet lingo and not real English, but the idea that there are some people out there who just don't like sex is common knowledge.

Isaac Newton, etc...


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

Dante Scioli said:


> People aren't ignorant of its existence though. They are ignorant of THE TERM "asexual," sure, because it's internet lingo and not real English, *but the idea that there are some people out there who just don't like sex is common knowledge.*


I don't know about that. In such a sex-crazed culture we have today, I think there's an expectation for people to like sex and it's weird if they don't. Also, a lot of conservatives support the traditional heterosexual family ideal where everyone has to make babies. Asexuality and aromanticism flies in the face of that. 

I believe the reason why conservatives don't bring that up more often is simply because they don't expect people to not like sex or romance. It's not on their radar, but if it became known that there's a lot of people that don't like those activities, I believe they would rally against those people.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> Just READ THE WHOLE THING. IT WILL MAKE SENSE IF YOU DON'T TAKE SNIPPETS OUT OF CONTEXT. I promise. I promise, you can understand what I'm saying without making me write ten sentences to explain every sentence. That sort of recursion is a nightmare I no longer have patience for.


I already did read it _in context_, and this is what I wrote in response to it: 



> That you try to burrow this one sentence by trying to reframe asexuality as being equivalent to celibacy etc. and therefore equal to it normativity, doesn't change the fact that you actually intrinsically recognize that asexuality is not a normative sexual orientation.


The underlying issue I take with your position is that you do not even seem to understand what asexuality means, which becomes clarified _if_ someone uses that particular term to describe their sexual experiences:



> Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.[1][2][3] It may be considered the lack of a sexual orientation, or one of the variations thereof, alongside heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality.[4][5][6] It may also be an umbrella term used to categorize a broader spectrum of various asexual sub-identities.
> 
> *Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy,[7][8] which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs.*[9] Sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be "enduring".[10] Some asexual people engage in sexual activity despite lacking sexual attraction or a desire for sex, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to pleasure themselves or romantic partners, or a desire to have children.[7][11]


You seem to think asexuality is normative _if_ people equalize their desire in public to abstinence of sexual interactions, and as I wrote, this creates an inconsistency in your position because how does this differ from a closeted homosexual that is not out in public and is leading a straight life?

Furthermore, you seem to think that just because there is lesser awareness of asexuality, this means that asexuality is normative, even though it is not. This refers back to the idea where you think asexuality is simply the abstinence of sex, even though that is not what asexuality is. I also want to add that in various times and places, homosexuality has been very publicly known and accepted sexual practices. 

When I say that someone publicly stating that they are asexual, that also means that they will have to explain what asexuality _is_ because how could otherwise others understand the experience? This explanation is simply not just "I do not want to have sex" in the colloquial sense, since that is a fundamental misunderstanding of asexuality as a sexual orientation. That the public misunderstands that and is ignorant about the nature of asexuality simply gives further evidence towards the fact that asexuality is currently very socially invisible. Ignorance is not the same as normativity and acceptance.

When asexuals say they have no _intrinsic_ desire for sex and they do not feel any kind of primary or perhaps even secondary sexual attraction, and they have _no_ need for sexual intimacy or perhaps even physical intimacy, the public perception clearly does change by thinking of the asexual as someone "queer", because people tend to dismiss said experiences by telling others that they are simply exaggerating or making things up. The fact that the public does this just further proves how misunderstood asexuals are, and how erased they are as a social group. 

Hell, even your own rationale behind this is an example thereof. You can't even consider the validity of (lack of) asexual desire. 



Dante Scioli said:


> I say this:
> You tried to tell me I was saying that when an asexual person "comes out" and explains his/her sexuality (for lack of a better term), they are received as queer. Nope. Said the opposite of that.


So just because you _think_, based on your own logically flawed premise built on an incorrect definition of asexuality, that asexuality is equivalent to the abstinence of sex, it does not mean that your logical conclusion _is_ accurate. When applying a correct definition of asexuality which is one such as provided by wikipedia in the above, your entire argument contradicts itself because the argument doesn't say what you actually think it says; it says the opposite, as I pointed out.

I want to add that I fall under the ace umbrella because I'm demisexual. I do have sex and I do enjoy having sex but only with someone I love and like as a person. I tried signing up for Tinder today and I felt repulsed because I realized right away how "shallow" it is, for the lack of a better word, only explicitly focusing on primary sexual attraction as the main reason as to want to speak to another person. It's all about whether you find someone else physically attractive or not without knowing them. 

It's extremely alienating for people such as myself trying to find new people like that, because Western society is so steeped in the idea of primary sexual attraction being the reason why you should interact with people, especially when looking for romance and love, that there's no social arena for me to do that. It doesn't exist. And I am not an asexual, I just have asexual-like tendencies since I'm demisexual. So I completely second what @Nabbit wrote being accurate. Normal sexuals don't realize this because they are sexual and thus represent the social norm.

Last but not least, again I wish to raise the issue why you, clearly a non-identified member of the LGBTQ, is arguing for who has the right to be a part of the LGBTQ or not? Furthermore, who are supposed to represent asexuals if they cannot be a part of the LGTBQ?


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Nabbit said:


> I don't know about that. In such a sex-crazed culture we have today, I think there's an expectation for people to like sex and it's weird if they don't. Also, a lot of conservatives support the traditional heterosexual family ideal where everyone has to make babies. Asexuality and aromanticism flies in the face of that.
> 
> I believe the reason why conservatives don't bring that up more often is simply because they don't expect people to not like sex or romance. It's not on their radar, but if it became known that there's a lot of people that don't like those activities, I believe they would rally against those people.


You don't have to like sex to believe reproduction is an obligation.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Wow, dude. You're doing it again. Stop.

You say


> Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.


You say that I say


Entropic said:


> you _think_, based on your own logically flawed premise built on an incorrect definition of asexuality, that asexuality is equivalent to the abstinence of sex


Even though I say...


Dante Scioli said:


> you don't want to have sex (which is the meaning of _the term_ "asexual")




So you're putting words in my mouth again. You're telling me that I'm arguing that asexuality is a lack of sexual behavior, not a lack of sexual interest. Even though I defined asexuality as a lack of sexual interest.

Putting words in my mouth is offensive and you have to stop.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> Wow, dude. You're doing it again. Stop.
> 
> You say
> 
> ...


No, "just wanting to not have sex" is not the same as what you are trying to say. You are equalizing a common public perception e.g. the abstinence of sex, to asexuality as an intrinsic sexual desire and you have even admitted as much yourself, because all the examples that you provided makes it clear that such is the case. I've pointed this out numerously and so have others. Stop conflate the two things. You wrote this:



> No, it does not. Asexuals do correspond to normal sexual behavior. *Celibacy, including voluntary celibacy,* is within the scope of normal sexual behavior. Therefore asexuals are not queer.


Asexuality is not "normal" sexual behavior because if that's the case, then why did people like @Simpson17866 or @Nabbit's friend get so much shit for what they claim to experience? In the case of Nabbit's friend, she didn't even call herself "asexual" by using that specific term because she didn't know it existed at that point.

Stop contradict yourself.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> No, "just wanting to not have sex" is not the same as what you are trying to say. You are equalizing a common public perception e.g. the abstinence of sex, to asexuality as an intrinsic sexual desire and you have even admitted as much yourself, because all the examples that you provided makes it clear that such is the case. I've pointed this out numerously and so have others. Stop conflate the two things. You wrote this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey bro, I'M NOT SAYING THAT.

You're confused. Instead of searching for the contradiction in ME, how about you search for the contradiction in YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I'M SAYING. That would be more productive and less rude.

There is a reason I was speaking about sexual behavior and celibacy. Do you remember what it is? Or would you rather pretend there's no reason and that I am just too stupid to fathom the _exotic_ concept that some people might not experience sexual attraction? That's sarcasm btw, before you fucking quote me out of context again.

IF YOU RECALL (which you obviously do not), I was speaking about *society's perception of an individual as "queer" or not*.

Do you remember when I said


Dante Scioli said:


> Society cannot see your orientation. That's on the inside and only you alone have access to it. Society decides whether you are queer or not based on your behavior.


Of course you don't. Because that would explain why I was talking about behaviors and external appearances and not talking about intrinsic sexual desire or lack thereof. Then how would you unfairly mischaracterize my position?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I'm straight, but I get told all the time I should switch to women. My lesbian friends have been trying to convince me for years to give up being straight. My straight best friend/room mate gets the same thing from the lesbian/bi community all the time, especially now that she has started online dating. There is a lot of pressure to be at least bisexual in many social circles. Which is weird because I don't care what they do, except to say that for the bisexuals it makes more sense for them to date/marry men. But that's because I know they want children and marrying a man simplifies things on that front for very obvious reasons.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I also want to add that there is one variation of the LGBTQ that is LGBTQI*A*:

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Intersex, *Asexual*



Dante Scioli said:


> Hey bro, I'M NOT SAYING THAT.
> 
> You're confused. Instead of searching for the contradiction in ME, how about you search for the contradiction in YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I'M SAYING. That would be more productive and less rude.
> 
> ...


Indeed I do, and I already covered that:



> When I say that someone publicly stating that they are asexual, that also means that they will have to explain what asexuality is because how could otherwise others understand the experience? This explanation is simply not just "I do not want to have sex" in the colloquial sense, since that is a fundamental misunderstanding of asexuality as a sexual orientation.* That the public misunderstands that and is ignorant about the nature of asexuality simply gives further evidence towards the fact that asexuality is currently very socially invisible. Ignorance is not the same as normativity and acceptance.*
> 
> When asexuals say they have no intrinsic desire for sex and they do not feel any kind of primary or perhaps even secondary sexual attraction, and they have no need for sexual intimacy or perhaps even physical intimacy, the public perception clearly does change by thinking of the asexual as someone "queer", because people tend to dismiss said experiences by telling others that they are simply exaggerating or making things up. The fact that the public does this just further proves how misunderstood asexuals are, and how erased they are as a social group.


And:



> Asexuality is not "normal" sexual behavior because if that's the case, then why did people like @Simpson17866 or @Nabbit 's friend get so much shit for what they claim to experience? In the case of Nabbit's friend, she didn't even call herself "asexual" by using that specific term because she didn't know it existed at that point.


How about you also reading what I write and the claims I make in refutation of your claims? I am well aware of what you are saying, and if that wasn't evidently clear by now, I _disagree_ with your logical position; I think it is flawed. I have pointed out several examples how so even to the point where I tried to summarize exactly how I take logical issue with it.

You may intend to say one thing, but that's not what you are saying because the logical conclusion of your thinking suggests otherwise. That's what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> I also want to add that there is one variation of the LGBTQ that is LGBTQI*A*:
> 
> Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Intersex, *Asexual*


Very profound.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Dante Scioli said:


> Very profound.


 Very profound observation


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

BlackDog said:


> I'm straight, but I get told all the time I should switch to women. My lesbian friends have been trying to convince me for years to give up being straight. My straight best friend/room mate gets the same thing from the lesbian/bi community all the time, especially now that she has started online dating. There is a lot of pressure to be at least bisexual in many social circles. Which is weird because I don't care what they do, except to say that for the bisexuals it makes more sense for them to date/marry men. But that's because I know they want children and marrying a man simplifies things on that front for very obvious reasons.


Those people sound like they're more close-minded if they want you to change your sexuality. I apologize on behalf of the community.
On a side note, I'm a lesbian, but sometimes I also get pressured to change my sexuality (to bisexuality) from the LGBT community itself too. I feel like the idea that "all women's sexuality is fluid" is starting to become common place in the community itself, and that any woman who isn't at least open to both genders has something wrong with her.

It's pretty ridiculous that they think they know our preferences better than we do.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> How about you also reading what I write and the claims I make in refutation of your claims? I am well aware of what you are saying, and if that wasn't evidently clear by now, I _disagree_ with your logical position; I think it is flawed. I have pointed out several examples how so even to the point where I tried to summarize exactly how I take logical issue with it.
> 
> You may intend to say one thing, but that's not what you are saying because the logical conclusion of your thinking suggests otherwise. That's what I've been saying all along.


What do you disagree with? Which part, exactly?


----------



## Introvertia (Feb 6, 2016)

Cisgender (female) and bisexual yet I've never considered myself part of LGBT. 

Probably because I've gotten the worst treatment from lesbians. Lone rangers, ahoy.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

@BlackDog @Librarylady @Introvertia Ouch :sad:


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

Dante Scioli said:


> You don't have to like sex to believe reproduction is an obligation.


You're right about that, but how many asexuals believe it's an obligation? How many people are willing to ignore their sexuality to fulfill an obligation like that? It's impossible to say without generalizing, but I believe in today's society where we are more apt to celebrate freedom of sexual preference, many would prefer to maintain their chosen sexual preference rather than fulfill a traditional obligation like that. Which would make conservative people mad.

And what about the romantic aspect of traditional families? Aromanticism still doesn't fit within the traditional family ideal even if the having kids and sex part is ignored. Society still heavily favors romanticism... it's an obligation to have a family with someone you love.



You can define and classify asexuality and aromanticism any way you want to, but I'm not buying that people who have no desire for sex and romance would be accepted by society without backlash. And because of that, these people need support. Even if there's not a lot of discrimination by law against them now, it could happen in the future when there's more public awareness of their existence. It's not hard for me to imagine a conservative backlash against these attitudes.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> Ouch :sad:


lol


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Nabbit said:


> You're right about that, but how many asexuals believe it's an obligation? How many people are willing to ignore their sexuality to fulfill an obligation like that? It's impossible to say without generalizing, but I believe in today's society where we are more apt to celebrate freedom of sexual preference, many would prefer to maintain their chosen sexual preference rather than fulfill a traditional obligation like that. Which would make conservative people mad.
> 
> And what about the romantic aspect of traditional families? Aromanticism still doesn't fit within the traditional family ideal even if the having kids and sex part is ignored. Society still heavily favors romanticism... it's an obligation to have a family with someone you love.
> 
> ...


I agree that spinstering out is not going to escape all criticism (but then, what does?), but no one will think you're "queer" for it is the point I'm trying to make in this thread. LGBT is an agglomeration of queer groups, asexuals are not a queer group.

I think lots of asexuals understand the importance and value of reproduction for all of its non-sexual reasons. Perhaps many of them choose not to use the term "asexual" though, which is similar to what you're saying.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Librarylady said:


> Those people sound like they're more close-minded if they want you to change your sexuality. I apologize on behalf of the community.
> On a side note, I'm a lesbian, but sometimes I also get pressured to change my sexuality (to bisexuality) from the LGBT community itself too. I feel like the idea that "all women's sexuality is fluid" is starting to become common place in the community itself, and that any woman who isn't at least open to both genders has something wrong with her.
> 
> It's pretty ridiculous that they think they know our preferences better than we do.


They're all right, I just think they're fighting a losing battle. Plus there is a teensy bit of hypocrisy in there somewhere, because at least one of them is big on the LGBT scene and I'm pretty sure one of the things they try to stress is how being gay isn't a choice. Which I always thought was odd come to think of it - what the hell do I care if it's a choice or not? Either my friend likes women because she can't help it or she likes women because she chooses to. I really don't see the moral distinction there. 

Perhaps ironically, I have always wondered if that woman's ex girlfriend isn't really a lesbian. I only say this because she has serious issues with men and I have reason to suspect her repulsion is at least partially psychological/emotional rather than sexual. One time at a dinner I mentioned something about my then-boyfriend and she blurted out that men are disgusting and the thought of touching one made her feel sick. Followed by some comments about how she couldn't understand why I would let one touch me. It was a pretty rude thing to say, but more importantly seemed like an unusually strong reaction. I am not attracted to women but the thought of touching one doesn't repulse me like that. Anyway, she can do what she wants. Just a thought I always had.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> I agree that spinstering out is not going to escape all criticism (but then, what does?), but no one will think you're "queer" for it is the point I'm trying to make in this thread. LGBT is an agglomeration of queer groups,* asexuals are not a queer group.*
> 
> I think lots of asexuals understand the importance and value of reproduction for all of its non-sexual reasons. Perhaps many of them choose not to use the term "asexual" though, which is similar to what you're saying.


What about starting with that I disagree with this as your main premise, based on an idea of public ignorance.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> What about starting with that I disagree with this as your main premise, based on an idea of public ignorance.


Groups are considered queer or not based on their behavior, not their feelings. No one has access to their feelings but themselves. Therefore the only basis that the public has for deciding whether a group is queer or not is behavior. Asexuals do not perform activities which challenge the heteronormative narrative. Therefore, asexuals do not exhibit queer behavior. Therefore, asexuals are not a queer group.

Which part of this do you disagree with?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Nabbit said:


> You're right about that, but how many asexuals believe it's an obligation? How many people are willing to ignore their sexuality to fulfill an obligation like that? It's impossible to say without generalizing, but I believe in today's society where we are more apt to celebrate freedom of sexual preference, many would prefer to maintain their chosen sexual preference rather than fulfill a traditional obligation like that. Which would make conservative people mad.
> 
> And what about the romantic aspect of traditional families? Aromanticism still doesn't fit within the traditional family ideal even if the having kids and sex part is ignored. Society still heavily favors romanticism... it's an obligation to have a family with someone you love.
> 
> ...


What possible legal discrimination could we reasonably expect asexuals to face now or in the future? I really can't think of anything, unless we just mean individuals not liking the label asexual and refusing to hire them or something. Which seems silly and pretty unlikely to be frank.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> @*BlackDog* @*Librarylady* @*Introvertia* Ouch :sad:


?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> Groups are considered queer or not based on their behavior, not their feelings. No one has access to their feelings but themselves. Therefore the only basis that the public has for deciding whether a group is queer or not is behavior. *Asexuals do not perform activities which challenge the heteronormative narrative*. *Therefore, asexuals do not exhibit queer behavior. Therefore, asexuals are not a queer group.*
> 
> Which part of this do you disagree with?


I am not talking about whether asexuals disagree because of how they feel, but I am talking about that the public does think that asexuals are "queer" when asexuals actually express themselves genuinely as asexuals instead "just abstaining from having sex". What about my past arguments have been difficult to understand about that? 

Look at the bolded; I don't think that's factually accurate at all. As I already wrote:



> When I say that someone publicly stating that they are asexual, that also means that they will have to explain what asexuality is because how could otherwise others understand the experience? This explanation is simply not just "I do not want to have sex" in the colloquial sense, since that is a fundamental misunderstanding of asexuality as a sexual orientation. *That the public misunderstands that and is ignorant about the nature of asexuality simply gives further evidence towards the fact that asexuality is currently very socially invisible. Ignorance is not the same as normativity and acceptance.*
> 
> When asexuals say they have no intrinsic desire for sex and they do not feel any kind of primary or perhaps even secondary sexual attraction, and they have no need for sexual intimacy or perhaps even physical intimacy, the public perception clearly does change by thinking of the asexual as someone "queer", because people tend to dismiss said experiences by telling others that they are simply exaggerating or making things up. The fact that the public does this just further proves how misunderstood asexuals are, and how erased they are as a social group.


What is it about these two paragraphs that you don't understand?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> ?


 I was trying to sympathize with how many people had just posted about having putting up with nonsense based on their orientation, but that seemed to confuse another poster in a way that he thought was funny, so I thought that specifying the people I was reacting to would emphasize that I was reacting to the thing that all three of you were talking about.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> I was trying to sympathize with how many people had just posted about having putting up with nonsense based on their orientation, but that seemed to confuse another poster in a way that he thought was funny, so I thought that specifying the people I was reacting to would emphasize that I was reacting to the thing that all three of you were talking about.


Oh, I see. Well thank you but I don't really think my cases calls for any sort of sympathy. My friends can say what they want. It's no skin off my hide if people want to think I'm gay or should be gay.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Oh, I see. Well thank you but I don't really think my cases calls for any sort of sympathy. My friends can say what they want. It's no skin off my hide if people want to think I'm gay or should be gay.


 Nice :happy:

I remember thinking as a teenager that my life would be easier if I could make myself be straight.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> Nice :happy:
> 
> I remember thinking as a teenager that my life would be easier if I could make myself be straight.


Ha, well it's not uncommon for straight people to say things would be easier if they were gay. The grass is always greener and all that.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> the public does think that asexuals are "queer" when asexuals actually express themselves genuinely as asexuals instead "just abstaining from having sex".


No, they don't, unless you use made up words from the internet and try to identify yourself with LGBT or other queer groups. But if you simply and honestly convey that you do not like the idea of sex and don't feel sexual attraction, no one is going to think you're queer.

As I said to Nabbit a minute ago, they may not like it, they may not tolerate it, they may not embrace it, but they will not think it's queer.

Some men only like asian girls. Oftentimes when a man expresses that he only likes asian girls, people respond negatively. They do not like it, they do not tolerate it, they do not embrace it. But no one thinks him "queer" for it.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> I was trying to sympathize


It's funny because "trying to sympathize" is not the same thing as actually feeling sympathy. It was an amusing hollow gesture that smacked of virtue signaling.


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

BlackDog said:


> They're all right, I just think they're fighting a losing battle. Plus there is a teensy bit of hypocrisy in there somewhere, because at least one of them is big on the LGBT scene and I'm pretty sure one of the things they try to stress is how being gay isn't a choice. Which I always thought was odd come to think of it - what the hell do I care if it's a choice or not? Either my friend likes women because she can't help it or she likes women because she chooses to. I really don't see the moral distinction there.
> 
> Perhaps ironically, I have always wondered if that woman's ex girlfriend isn't really a lesbian. I only say this because she has serious issues with men and I have reason to suspect her repulsion is at least partially psychological/emotional rather than sexual. One time at a dinner I mentioned something about my then-boyfriend and she blurted out that men are disgusting and the thought of touching one made her feel sick. Followed by some comments about how she couldn't understand why I would let one touch me. It was a pretty rude thing to say, but more importantly seemed like an unusually strong reaction. I am not attracted to women but the thought of touching one doesn't repulse me like that. Anyway, she can do what she wants. Just a thought I always had.


I agree, repulsion is a very strong word to use. I wouldn't say that men repulse me, a better word to use would be that they just turn me off. There's no sexual desire or interest in them, but that doesn't mean they're disgusting human beings. In fact, they can make wonderful friends and are enjoyable to talk to. I'm not grossed out by heterosexual sex- my friends can talk to me about it if they want to, but It's just not something I want to participate in.

Most people are just indifferent to things they aren't interested in. I can say that I dislike a particular food and have no interest in eating it again, but it would be extreme to have an anxiety attack just because someone else is eating it in front of me. Such a reaction indicates some psychological issue.


----------



## Tipo (Jan 12, 2017)

Dante Scioli said:


> That's because of *THE TERM*, not because of its meaning.
> 
> Can you think of any reasons why that might be?


Maybe because it is excluded from the acronym lgbt/ not really talked about
Are most terms not intrinsically linked to their meanings? People who think can figure it out. "A-" means not or the opposite of sexual. If you say, "I'm (an) asexual" people can pretty much figure out your sexuality and what you mean. "Because of the term, not the meaning" is so contradictory. Also, how can you preach abt all of this when you're a) not in the lgbt+ community AND b) not asexual? (Asexuals can be in the community if they feel that is where their identity lies, of course. It's not obligatory.) 
Why are you even so riled up about this when you're straight and cis and therefore have personally nothing whatsoever to do with the lgbt+ community?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Dante Scioli said:


> It's funny because "trying to sympathize" is not the same thing as actually feeling sympathy. It was an amusing hollow gesture that smacked of virtue signaling.


 Thank you for continuing to bump this thread to the top of the list, I'm sure that I'm getting a lot more votes than I would've otherwise :wink:


----------



## Tipo (Jan 12, 2017)

Dante Scioli said:


> They are ignorant of *THE TERM* "asexual," sure, because it's internet lingo and not real English, but the idea that there are some people out there who just don't like sex is common knowledge.


Is the Internet not a huge part of our world? People read and consume media via the Internet almost constantly, and therefore it has a huge impact on real life and society, behaviors. It is a communication medium, basically...so communicating an "internet term" a lot will probably integrate it into real life conversations and applications.


Dante Scioli said:


> I think lots of asexuals understand the importance and value of reproduction for all of its non-sexual reasons. Perhaps many of them choose not to use the term "asexual" though, which is similar to what you're saying.


Then those asexuals would not be celibate, while you have been claiming celibacy is a form of asexuality all along


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> No, they don't, unless you use made up words from the internet and try to identify yourself with LGBT or other queer groups. But if you simply and honestly convey that you do not like the idea of sex and don't feel sexual attraction, no one is going to think you're queer.


Based on how you defined "queer" as in garnering the "queer look" once you express it honestly? Yes, it does. Again, why have people expressed that they have been clearly discriminated against because of their sexuality? 



> As I said to Nabbit a minute ago, they may not like it, they may not tolerate it, they may not embrace it, but they will not think it's queer.


According to _you_. I would hardly argue you represent consensus opinion, here.



> Some men only like asian girls. Oftentimes when a man expresses that he only likes asian girls, people respond negatively. They do not like it, they do not tolerate it, they do not embrace it. But no one thinks him "queer" for it.


That entirely depends on how he likes Asian girls, so I don't think your analogy holds. If we for example begin to specify it here, that if he says he likes girls that would fall under the definition of being underaged, or if he likes them bound up and whipped bloody, yeah, that would garner _a lot_ of "queer looks". You have yet to answer why you don't think other deviant sexualities such as bestiality or extreme hardcore forms of BDSM don't fall under LGBTQ even though people would react as strongly to these forms of sexualities as theý would say, homosexuals. They are hardly representative of heteronormative society, either. 

You write, again, under the assumption that people conflate this with colloquial experiences and/or understanding. As I already wrote:



> That the public misunderstands that and is ignorant about the nature of asexuality simply gives further evidence towards the fact that asexuality is currently very socially invisible. Ignorance is not the same as normativity and acceptance.


Like, idk, how many times should I have to quote myself on this? Just because _you_ think it's normative, it doesn't mean it _is_ normative. What evidence do you have to support it is normative as opposed to non-normative? There is evidence present in this very thread where people have expressed that they were harassed and/or discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. That should speak for itself. That's not a matter of "their feelings", but these are overt actions done by other people because they do not like the way other how asexuals express their sexualities. 

That you deny this is just beyond me.



Tipo said:


> lso, how can you preach abt all of this when you're a) not in the lgbt+ community AND b) not asexual? (Asexuals can be in the community if they feel that is where their identity lies, of course. It's not obligatory.)
> Why are you even so riled up about this when you're straight and cis and therefore have personally nothing whatsoever to do with the lgbt+ community?


And this, pretty much. I mean, the way I see it, is that it's up to the person if they want to identify with the LGBTQ or not. So I don't understand the policing at any level whatsoever. If asexuals want to identify with the group, why shouldn't they? At least it's more likely to represent them and their rights than other groups.


----------



## Jaune (Jul 11, 2013)

I'm cisgender. I'm asexual but heteromantic so I consider myself straight.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> Thank you for continuing to bump this thread to the top of the list, I'm sure that I'm getting a lot more votes than I would've otherwise :wink:


It's sad that "petty" is the only way you know how to be.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Tipo said:


> Is the Internet not a huge part of our world? People read and consume media via the Internet almost constantly, and therefore it has a huge impact on real life and society, behaviors. It is a communication medium, basically...so communicating an "internet term" a lot will probably integrate it into real life conversations and applications.
> 
> Then those asexuals would not be celibate, while you have been claiming celibacy is a form of asexuality all along


Deconstructing terms is sooo boring. You and everyone knows exactly what is meant by "internet lingo" and why it is strange to use it in the real world. Yes, wow, millions of people use the world wide web today, wonderful, that doesn't change the point at all though.

"Claiming celibacy is a form of asexuality?" Not another one of these people deciding what I said for me. I said asexuals often are celibate? Didn't say anything more than that. But please, continue taking my bland tautologies and trying to paint them as wild claims.

Come on, you didn't have anything to say really, you just wanted to argue. This post is sooo vacant of anything worth saying.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> According to _you_. I would hardly argue you represent consensus opinion, here.


You actually disagree with that? That statement was an appeal to common sense because I took it for granted that everyone would plainly agree on that simple point. Do you really feel otherwise? Or are you just niggling?

If you actually do think that people would find that "queer" under any common English usage of the word "queer," then I am surprised. Is English your first language?



Entropic said:


> You have yet to answer why you don't think other deviant sexualities such as bestiality or extreme hardcore forms of BDSM don't fall under LGBTQ even though people would react as strongly to these forms of sexualities as theý would say, homosexuals. They are hardly representative of heteronormative society, either.


Kinky is not queer. Zzz. Is that what you're arguing? Anything that isn't hetero missionary is queer? Be more specific. I wish you would just STATE your point of view instead of ramble on about how mean mine is.



Entropic said:


> Like, idk, how many times should I have to quote myself on this? Just because _you_ think it's normative, it doesn't mean it _is_ normative. What evidence do you have to support it is normative as opposed to non-normative? There is evidence present in this very thread where people have expressed that they were harassed and/or discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. That should speak for itself.


You can stop quoting that. We've talked about it ten times over. Remember when I said I was talking about public perceptions, not private ones? Remember how I said no life choice is going to face no friction from anyone? Remember how I said society cannot see your internal orientation and so only judges you based on your actions?


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Dante Scioli said:


> Deconstructing terms is sooo boring.


 How many pages have you spent deconstructing the term "LGBT" so far?


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> How many pages have you spent deconstructing the term "LGBT" so far?


Learn what words mean before you use them.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> You actually disagree with that? That statement was an appeal to common sense because I took it for granted that everyone would plainly agree on that simple point. Do you really feel otherwise? Or are you just niggling?


If people agreed with you, why do you think several people have chosen to argue the point with you? Just because you think it's "common sense", it doesn't mean it's "common sense" based on actual facts. You've yet to provide any facts that support the case and you've yet to refute my comment with actual people, not just one person, but at least two people, having been specifically targeted due to their sexuality, in this thread. That points towards a trend, not a separate instance. 



> If you actually do think that people would find that "queer" under any common English usage of the word "queer," then I am surprised. Is English your first language?


What has my language skills got to do with it? I understand what the word "queer" suggests in this context. Now, what's what I think is "common sense", given the situation at hand, because there is actual evidence to suggest that is so. Or would using such a phrase as "the other", or "othering" be better? Because that's actually far more apt for this situation.

We are speaking of social transgression, people that deviate from a normative point of view and are seen as "the other". 



> Kinky is not queer. Zzz. Is that what you're arguing? Anything that isn't hetero missionary is queer? Be more specific. I wish you would just STATE your point of view instead of ramble on about how mean mine is.


And how is expressing pedophilia equivalent to being kinky? How is bestiality a form of being kinky? How are extreme acts of BDSM, emphasis on extreme, being kinky? I am not talking about what you see in 50 Shades of Gray. I _have_ operated on the basic common dictionary definition of what "queer" is, and how you've used the word thus far. I already defined what it is equivalent of in the above. Now you are intentionally misconstruing what I wrote even though the context should make it clear with the examples cited, that I am simply not just referring to people being a little "kinky" in the bedroom, lol. 



> You can stop quoting that. We've talked about it ten times over. Remember when I said I was talking about public perceptions, not private ones? Remember how I said no life choice is going to face no friction from anyone? Remember how I said society cannot see your internal orientation and so only judges you based on your actions?


If we have, then maybe begin to _address_ it and acknowledge that you understand the point instead of keep ignoring it. Because I already countered _all _of your points: 

1. That the public misunderstands that and is ignorant about the nature of asexuality simply gives further evidence towards the fact that asexuality is currently very socially invisible. Ignorance is not the same as normativity and acceptance.

2. And if several people are treated the same due to one commonly shared experience that they share, then clearly it becomes a matter of public perception. How do you delineate between an individual occurrence and when several such occurrences occur to the point you can no longer say it's an individual occurrence anymore?

By the same logic, then any crime done against someone else because someone targets them for being a minority group is not due to them being a minority group, but simply because it's an "individual occurrence". And that logic is such BS too. 

And again, you successfully avoided addressing point 1).


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Entropic said:


> If people agreed with you, why do you think several people have chosen to argue the point with you? Just because you think it's "common sense", it doesn't mean it's "common sense" based on actual facts. You've yet to provide any facts that support the case and you've yet to refute my comment with actual people, not just one person, but at least two people, having been specifically targeted due to their sexuality, in this thread. That points towards a trend, not a separate instance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


K I really don't care to talk to you anymore. Communication between us is excruciatingly inefficient for whatever reason. Bye.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> K I really don't care to talk to you anymore. Communication between us is excruciatingly inefficient for whatever reason. Bye.


It would certainly help if you actually tried to answer the questions posed to you instead of just ignoring them. It is indeed inefficient for the person that keeps asking questions to have to repeatedly ask the same question and yet not have it answered.


----------



## Tipo (Jan 12, 2017)

Dante Scioli said:


> Come on, you didn't have anything to say really, you just wanted to argue. This post is sooo vacant of anything worth saying.


At least I am up front about my love of arguing....you, however, seem to take arguments personally and your only rebuttal is that your opponents are word twisters. A disgrace to debating. (Remind anyone of our president elect?) At least argue with good points other than accusations, and with points that do not contradict each other. I would have liked to say this conversation with opposing views has been enlightening, explorative, a pleasure, or even fun but it's mostly been pointless.

If my post is so vacant why did you continue the argument for several more paragraphs lol. If I have one thing to thank this topic/thread for it's drama, which I do love. So thanks for that at least


----------



## Draper (Apr 16, 2014)

Well first of all I have no idea what in the fuck is going on in this thread, so I'm just gonna ignore all that and discuss the actual results of the poll.

It's pretty surprising things are so even. Maybe it's self-selecting because people on a typology forum are more likely to be weirdo social deviants? (Just kidding.) Or maybe it's because a lot of people around here are pretty young, and recent studies have shown that young people are more likely than ever to identify as something other than straight? Will be interesting to see how that plays out in the future.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

wow, there are more non-cis and not-straight people than I thought there would be! I'm among this group.

I'm non-binary, or androgyne. I am also panromantic and gray-ace. lol. It strikes me that some people probably don't know what any of those things mean, feel free to ask about it.


----------



## Nazom (Apr 11, 2017)

Trans Polysexual Panromantic; definitely Queer™


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

Plain and vanilla gay cis male.


----------



## Clare_Bare (Apr 6, 2015)

To be more specific ...

* Transsexual Female.
* Bisexual.


----------



## Ghosties (Sep 7, 2014)

Agender, with a complicated sexuality.

Not sexually attracted to real people, only 2D, but aesthetically attracted to mostly girls/andro appearing people.

Like a few other people have mentioned, I don't really consider myself part of the "community" of lgbt. I feel like a lot of the movement has disintegrated thanks to tumblr and modern sj extremists. 
I'd rather just exist as I am.


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

Cis gender female, bisexual. Out on the internet only since early 00's. Which probably isn't really 'out' lol. One day.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

I have voted for cisgender, and straight, even though I'm mostly attracted to non-op trans women, and I think to be demisexual.


----------



## napkineater (Mar 26, 2013)

Cis gendered lesbian, found this on the LGBT chat. Read some of the thread -- holy shit. *2edgy4me*. 

Nobody asked but I consider myself part of the LGBT, I attend pride, go to gay bars, I actively support the trans community, many of my friends are gay men, part of the drag community, and transgendered. It's a fabulous community to have the privilege to be involved in and I'm too fun-loving to look down on it as too gaudy. I think people have a poor understanding of how the LGBT functions because they have issues with LGBT people they won't admit to. *1. You can be part of a group and not agree with everything they do*. 2. The LGBT crowd in my country is extremely helpful, supportive, and full of loving people. Some of the most amazing people I've met have been in the community. They've given me a voice, they haven't judged me, and they've shown me more fun and love than I thought I'd encounter when I was just a little gay doing her own thing. 

I'm not a gatekeeper on identity or what constitutes as LGBT or how many letters there should be in there or whatthefuckever--to me all that matters is everyone feels included. I'm not going to call them special snowflakes because if you're seeking a community for something you feel excludes you from dominant culture *you're probably not faking it*. Bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, whatever you got I'll have._ That's why communities exist_. I've seen rampant biphobia within the community that I'm adamantly against and I've seen transgendered people acting prats and calling me transphobic for not wanting their dicks--it's not always pretty. What's worse is that they have overly PC LGBT allowing them to act this way so as not to hurt their feelings. If you're transgendered and think it's discriminatory for someone not to date you, you are an ASSHOLE. And I don't have any warm feelings for you. I also will very hesitatingly agree to call someone zhim or zhe for the love of language and clarity.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Someone has said I could just be trans in denial. I'm also questioning my sexuality.


----------

