From straight to lesbian

[SimonDoom]

Wow. People are what they are, and not necessarily what they do.

What does that mean? How do you know what they are? Because they tell you?

If my ex-girlfriend who had a relationship with a woman in her 20s now said she was straight, not bi, then by this test you would be obligated to recognize her as straight. Would you? If not, and you insist on calling her bi, as stickygirl seems to want to do, then on what basis do you insist on using that term? How do you "know" what this woman "is"? You don't, right? You don't know anything about her other than the tiny bit of information I've revealed, which as far as you know may be highly unreliable.

Stickygirl seems to be prepared to insist that she is "bi," which is precisely an example of labeling people based on what they've done, not what they "are."

So which is it?

 

[AlinaX]

What does that mean? How do you know what they are? Because they tell you?

That's generally the most reliable way. Sure some people lie. Some even lie to themselves. But if a woman says to you, "I'm a lesbian," then you don't get to say, "But you've been fucking a man for the past five years, so you're clearly not."

If my ex-girlfriend who had a relationship with a woman in her 20s now said she was straight, not bi, then by this test you would be obligated to recognize her as straight. Would you? If not, and you insist on calling her bi, as stickygirl seems to want to do, then on what basis do you insist on using that term? How do you "know" what this woman "is"? You don't, right? You don't know anything about her other than the tiny bit of information I've revealed, which as far as you know may be highly unreliable.

Stickygirl seems to be prepared to insist that she is "bi," which is precisely an example of labeling people based on what they've done, not what they "are."

So which is it?

If your ex-girlfriend says she's straight, then so be it. But I can still argue that *if* she is still attracted to women but chooses not to act on it, then her choice of label is more an assertion of intent than truly reflective of her experience. But I don't know what's going on in her head.

People change labels as they go through life. Sometimes it depends on context, so that to colleagues you're straight, to friends you're queer, to very close friends you're demiromantic grey-asexual,... or sometimes you understand yourself better and understand the labels differently, or sometimes you do actually change. People are messy. Labels are just a navigation aid.

So maybe your ex is really straight. Maybe she just doesn't want to complicate her life by claiming otherwise. It's not up to us to assign labels to her. We can only say what our labels would be if we were who we think she is.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Sometimes it depends on context, so that to colleagues you're straight, to friends you're queer, to very close friends you're demiromantic grey-asexual,...

That context selection would suggest someone can change their choices to appease, shock, or manipulate others, merely based on the group they are talking to.

That doesn't seem to be a very honest way to communicate with well-defined words we all might better understand.

 

[MelissaBaby]

That context selection would suggest someone can change their choices to appease, shock, or manipulate others, merely based on the group they are talking to.

That doesn't seem to be a very honest way to communicate with well-defined words we all might better understand.

It's not dishonest, it's just adaptive behavior. To use another context, I am white, my husband is black. I listen to him code switch frequently. The vocabulary and grammar he uses with his black friends is different from what he uses at work, or in any sort of business setting. The way he speaks with his family is different yet. Is he being dishonest?

But, really, don't we all tailor our language to some extent, depending on the audience we are addressing? And isn't that, in part, about respect for the person we are addressing?

 

[AlinaX]

That context selection would suggest someone can change their choices to appease, shock, or manipulate others, merely based on the group they are talking to.

That doesn't seem to be a very honest way to communicate with well-defined words we all might better understand.

What isn't honest is the way ignorant bigots (I don't mean you, but trust me, they're out there and screaming) whine about 'made up' identities and the 'alphabet soup' of LGBTQIA+.
Until labels can be used without fear, there is no dishonesty in being selective.

 

[Lifestyle66]

It's not dishonest, it's just adaptive behavior. To use another context, I am white, my husband is black. I listen to him code switch frequently. The vocabulary and grammar he uses with his black friends is different from what he uses at work, or in any sort of business setting. The way he speaks with his family is different yet. Is he being dishonest?

But, really, don't we all tailor our language to some extent, depending on the audience we are addressing? And isn't that, in part, about respect for the person we are addressing?

What isn't honest is the way ignorant bigots (I don't mean you, but trust me, they're out there and screaming) whine about 'made up' identities and the 'alphabet soup' of LGBTQIA+.
Until labels can be used without fear, there is no dishonesty in being selective.

I agree with both of you.

But sometimes changing those labels is done to appease or hide something, whether it's out of fear or deceiving judgmental bigots, be they work colleagues or family.

I think the motives for such changes in context may be worth considering. Do we change a label out of respect for the other person (ie. respect for parents who raised us and their feelings) or is it more self-serving to get a promotion at work? Or is using a label sometimes done for the shock value to make others take notice in a group?

 

[Bramblethorn]

That context selection would suggest someone can change their choices to appease, shock, or manipulate others, merely based on the group they are talking to.

That doesn't seem to be a very honest way to communicate with well-defined words we all might better understand.

If you want more honesty on such topics, probably best to take that up with the folk who make it dangerous to be honest.

Though often it's just a matter of different vocabulary for different audiences. There's no point in self-defining as "demi-rom grey-ace" to somebody who doesn't know what that means, and explaining that kind of thing all the time can get tiring.

 

[AlinaX]

Do you mean... like the clothes we wear?

 

[Bramblethorn]

I agree with both of you.

But sometimes changing those labels is done to appease or hide something, whether it's out of fear or deceiving judgmental bigots, be they work colleagues or family.

I think the motives for such changes in context may be worth considering. Do we change a label out of respect for the other person (ie. respect for parents who raised us and their feelings) or is it more self-serving to get a promotion at work?

For the case Alina was talking about up above, I'd suggest an alternate framing: "to avoid being unfairly excluded from a promotion at work". Is it "self-serving" not to give people the information they'd use to discriminate against oneself?

 

[Lifestyle66]

For the case Alina was talking about up above, I'd suggest an alternate framing: "to avoid being unfairly excluded from a promotion at work". Is it "self-serving" not to give people the information they'd use to discriminate against oneself?

Your scenario would fall within "consider the motives". If the boss happens to be gay, would an employee alluding to being gay also fall into that "avoid being unfairly excluded" group?

So, I still think motives matter.

I worked with a guy almost twenty years ago, who one or two other employees described as gay possibly with no personal knowledge but because of his dress, mannerisms, and wearing an earring. He wasn't concerned about being judged unfairly for promotions. And he never mentioned his sexuality to me, because it was none of my business at work and it never came up. He was who he was, and proud of it, without be "in your face, look at me".

I think today, we're seeing too many people applying labels to themselves (and others) for the shock value to gain notice, and not with good intentions.

 

[SimonDoom]

Circling this conversation back to the original post, one way of dealing with this issue is to mostly, or completely, avoid the issue of labels. It doesn't have to be about turning a straight woman into a lesbian. It can be about a woman who has mostly or entirely had relationships with men suddenly having a relationship with a woman. That's not hard to imagine at all -- there are people who ultimately identify as gay who go through a period of dating people of the opposite sex. I'm working on a story like this, and by the time it's finished I imagine it will leave it somewhat to the reader to decide, based on how the story goes, how they want to identify the woman, if they want to do that. That's one of the nice things about fiction. You get to set the rules and dictate how the game plays out. Strict realism is not necessary.

 

[AlinaX]

I think today, we're seeing too many people applying labels to themselves (and others) for the shock value to gain notice, and not with good intentions.

Mostly people use labels as a way to connect with people. How are you supposed to find people like yourself in a world where everyone assumes you're straight unless you assert otherwise?

[rant deleted]

 

[Lifestyle66]

Mostly people use labels as a way to connect with people. How are you supposed to find people like yourself in a world where everyone assumes you're straight unless you assert otherwise?

[rant deleted]

In the Loving Wives comments, they use labels like cuck, whore, gay-wannbee, etc to connect, too, just connecting in a not good way.

There was a recent TikToc or Youtube video of someone dancing and saying "I'm a queer teacher, and I'm indoctrinating your kids on the taxpayers' dime." In that context, that's obviously a label being used to inflame hatred.

As I said, the motives for using and applying labels matter. And they are often not good intentions.

 

[AlinaX]

There was a recent TikToc or Youtube video of someone dancing and saying "I'm a queer teacher, and I'm indoctrinating your kids on the taxpayers' dime." In that context, that's obviously a label being used to inflame hatred.

lol - Sounds like satire to me.
When perfectly innocent queer teachers are being accused of indoctrinating kids, how is it not satire to claim to be doing that very thing? Classic wind-up...

 

[Lifestyle66]

lol - Sounds like satire to me.
When perfectly innocent queer teachers are being accused of indoctrinating kids, how is it not satire to claim to be doing that very thing? Classic wind-up...

LOL - Sounds like encouraging hatred and division to me. But we all have our points of view and opinions.

It's like I say about the Loving Wives trolls who open and 1-bomb stories they KNOW they'll hate: Spreading hatred is their form of entertainment. And that video is doing just that, having a good laugh at the expense of others.

 

[AlinaX]

Wait. You think the satire is hateful but you're indifferent to the actual accusations of this hurled at real teachers?

 

[Lifestyle66]

Wait. You think the satire is hateful but you're indifferent to the actual accusations of this hurled at real teachers?

In the real world of those who have kids and depend on the public schools for their kids' education, parents have always objected to teachers introducing religion in the classrooms. They have (in the U.S. in the past) objected to sex education in those classrooms, too.

Many parents believe that the public-school classrooms are to provide a basic education, and allow such other religious, cultural, and behavioral education to the parents and families as part of their own cultural heritage. It's a fine line between government educating kids and government having those kids wear armbands to report on their family members. Real teachers have a job to do which has nothing to do with family values or religious education. Those teachers who think otherwise are NOT "real" teachers. They have other agendas.


As for satire, how many comedians today have been told they're no longer allowed to perform due to their unwelcome form of comedy (not unwelcome to all, just those they offend), and that is when they are performing in a comedy club which SHOULD welcome all forms of satire?

No. People posting such videos to the public without clearly labeling it as satire are doing so to solicit the hateful reactions.

Years ago, comedian Kathy Griffin posed for a photo holding the severed head of the U.S. President! And in the video of her posing for that she said, "We'll have to move to Mexico after this." But she was then outraged that her career tanked for having done it. And that teacher will be equally outraged when some irate parent reacts.

Most people posting hate try claiming they are being edgy or funny, when they know they're really just posting hate trying to get a reaction. They're like teenagers making outrageous and rebellious claims and dress, to poke at their parents. They act surprised and outraged when their parents stop all financial support.

IMO, people should look more closely at the motives. Comedy and satire has a place, but that place is not in the general public forums out of context.

 

[AlinaX]

What does that have to do with attacks on real teachers who do nothing more extreme than be honest about who they are? They're the victims here.

Anyway, methinks 'tis pointless to continue this argument.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Your scenario would fall within "consider the motives". If the boss happens to be gay, would an employee alluding to being gay also fall into that "avoid being unfairly excluded" group?

What an interesting question to be asking. Let me answer it with another question.

Back in 2016, when same-gender marriage was still illegal here in Australia, I worked for a guy who wore a golden ring on his finger. At the time, this was a thing mostly done by people who were married to an opposite-gender partner, so it was a pretty good signal that they were straight or at least emphasising the straight aspect of their relationships.

Several of my co-workers wore the same kind of rings, alluding to their own opposite-gender relationships. (Some even went further and had photos of themselves with opposite-gender partners on their desks, or dropped mentions of their heterosexuality into the lunchroom conversation, things like "we went up to Cairns to visit my wife's family for the holidays".)

Were they doing this to earn favour with their bosses? Or to attract attention for some other self-serving reason? I feel so naïve that I never even considered those possibilities; I just thought it was a thing many straight people did because they enjoyed being able to share a little bit about their lives beyond the workplace and were accustomed to being able to do so without any threat of retaliation.

But now you're telling me that this kind of signalling has ulterior motives, and I'm wondering if I should have been a lot more cynical about my straight co-workers all these years.

I worked with a guy almost twenty years ago, who one or two other employees described as gay possibly with no personal knowledge but because of his dress, mannerisms, and wearing an earring. He wasn't concerned about being judged unfairly for promotions. And he never mentioned his sexuality to me, because it was none of my business at work and it never came up. He was who he was, and proud of it, without be "in your face, look at me".

Are these things he actually said to you, or are putting motives in the mouth of somebody who might not have had the reasons you assume he did?

I assume you weren't wearing a wedding ring in that workplace yourself, at a time when same-gender marriage would have been illegal in most of the USA, but did you happen to notice whether any of your straight co-workers did?

 

[Lifestyle66]

What an interesting question to be asking. Let me answer it with another question.

Back in 2016, when same-gender marriage was still illegal here in Australia, I worked for a guy who wore a golden ring on his finger. At the time, this was a thing mostly done by people who were married to an opposite-gender partner, so it was a pretty good signal that they were straight or at least emphasising the straight aspect of their relationships.

Several of my co-workers wore the same kind of rings, alluding to their own opposite-gender relationships. (Some even went further and had photos of themselves with opposite-gender partners on their desks, or dropped mentions of their heterosexuality into the lunchroom conversation, things like "we went up to Cairns to visit my wife's family for the holidays".)

Were they doing this to earn favour with their bosses? Or to attract attention for some other self-serving reason? I feel so naïve that I never even considered those possibilities; I just thought it was a thing many straight people did because they enjoyed being able to share a little bit about their lives beyond the workplace and were accustomed to being able to do so without any threat of retaliation.

But now you're telling me that this kind of signalling has ulterior motives, and I'm wondering if I should have been a lot more cynical about my straight co-workers all these years.



Are these things he actually said to you, or are putting motives in the mouth of somebody who might not have had the reasons you assume he did?

I assume you weren't wearing a wedding ring in that workplace yourself, at a time when same-gender marriage would have been illegal in most of the USA, but did you happen to notice whether any of your straight co-workers did?

I never wore my wedding ring at work, because that was no one's business except for my wife. I only wear one when we are out together, due to such issues as you point out: it's a symbol between me and her, and only to be worn when I'm out in social situations as a warning that she wants me to show "she's claimed me".

And I don't discuss plans my wife and I make or events we attended as a couple, except with close friends who ask. My personal life had nothing to do with my work (unless they called me in on a weekend.)

When I post some of our activities in these forums, I usually do so as anecdotes as "food for thought", in the same manner others do. I wouldn't offer such anecdotes in other groups who might take offense or think them inappropriate around their kids or grandkids. And any such discussions of sex or erotic situations ARE inappropriate around other peoples' kids.


I worked for a few years at Booz-Allen & Hamilton, and I went through a week-long new employee seminar. An HR rep gave a presentation on dress codes and expected behavior. She said "Your work site might allow jeans and t-shirts for everyday work. But look around this building at the V.P.s and see how they're dressed and how they behave. If you want to get ahead in this company, get a clue!"

That guy at work was well aware of such training. And he was equally judgmental. He once came from a meeting disparaging another employee's comments, then added "And my shirt probably cost more than his whole suit!"

 

[Bramblethorn]

In the real world of those who have kids and depend on the public schools for their kids' education, parents have always objected to teachers introducing religion in the classrooms. They have (in the U.S. in the past) objected to sex education in those classrooms, too.

No, they haven't "always" objected. Most of those folk have been absolutely fine with Christmas decorations, with their kids being read stories about princes falling in love with princesses, with their kids hearing that Miss Smith who teaches the third grade just got married to Principal Jones and now they're having a baby.

It was only when they had to deal with the prospect of other religions getting a mention, with their children hearing stories about princes falling in love with princes, that they discovered these objections, and even now they don't apply them equally to their own religion and orientation.

Many parents believe that the public-school classrooms are to provide a basic education, and allow such other religious, cultural, and behavioral education to the parents and families as part of their own cultural heritage. It's a fine line between government educating kids and government having those kids wear armbands to report on their family members.

Lol no it isn't.

As for satire, how many comedians today have been told they're no longer allowed to perform due to their unwelcome form of comedy (not unwelcome to all, just those they offend),

If we're still talking about government compulsion: none. There is no government agency telling comedians they're not allowed to perform, just individual venues making their own choices about who to hire. I don't expect a Christian fellowship group to host my atheist stand-up routine, let alone pay me for it. (I don't even expect an atheist group to host it, because my stand-up is terrible.)

Even talking about private businesses making their own choices... who has actually been cancelled? Not Dave Chappelle, who's currently got posters up for a tour of Australia after getting paid a shitton of money for a Netflix special. Not Louis C.K., who got busted for sexually harassing a ton of female colleagues and having his manager threaten retaliation if they reported it - he took a brief time-out and went back to performing less than a year later, to standing ovations.

(Meanwhile, how many of the women who he harassed left comedy because of it? Might some of them have been funny too? Guess we'll never know.)

No. People posting such videos to the public without clearly labeling it as satire are doing so to solicit the hateful reactions.

No, they're just giving the general public too much credit for being able to recognise a very obvious joke.

IMO, people should look more closely at the motives. Comedy and satire has a place, but that place is not in the general public forums out of context.

Okay then. In the interests of keeping comedy and satire to the Designated Comedy Zones and out of places like TikTok and YouTube: which are the comedy clubs that are willing to pay for something like that queer-teacher parody dance act?

I mean, like you say, comedy clubs should be open to ALL kinds of humour, right?

 

[SimonDoom]

I never wore my wedding ring at work, because that was no one's business except for my wife. I only wear one when we are out together, due to such issues as you point out: it's a symbol between me and her, and only to be worn when I'm out in social situations as a warning that she wants me to show "she's claimed me".

If you say this is your experience, I believe you, but your experience is quite different from mine. I've worked in a variety of office environments, and the custom always has been that both men and women wear their wedding rings. When I was married, I almost never took it off. In fact, if you took your wedding ring off at the office, people sometimes looked askance at you, because it made you look like a player. I had a friend like that, who didn't wear a wedding ring when he was away from his wife because he thought not wearing a ring fit his image better as being a guy who was available. I thought it was a dick move. They ended up getting divorced, of course.

My experience is that people in the office commonly talk about their spouses and kids and family plans. I mean, what are you going to talk about?

I don't like an excess of showiness, but it seems right to me that gay people should be free in the office to talk about their relationships to the exact same extent as straight people typically do.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I never wore my wedding ring at work, because that was no one's business except for my wife. I only wear one when we are out together, due to such issues as you point out: it's a symbol between me and her, and only to be worn when I'm out in social situations as a warning that she wants me to show "she's claimed me".

Cool. And when other people do wear rings to work do you assume they're doing it for their careers?

And I don't discuss plans my wife and I make or events we attended as a couple, except with close friends who ask. My personal life had nothing to do with my work (unless they called me in on a weekend.)

Some times my personal life has interacted with my work:

- my girlfriend got in a car crash out in the country, and I had to take the day off to go pick her up
- my employer wanted a background check, which included information about my partner
- we moved for my new job but my partner wasn't happy in the new town, so I had to talk to my bosses about why I wanted a transfer to another city
- my partner was unwell so I needed to go home and look after her
- my partner was upset about something (like taking the dog to the vet for a checkup and finding out he was dying) so I needed to go home and look after her
- my partner's parent became seriously ill, so I had to let my boss know there was a good chance I'd need to take leave at short notice for a funeral
- my partner's sibling was involved in something that could have caused a conflict of interest for my job, so I was required to let my employer know about the situation.

It amazes me that people manage to get through an entire career without ever having something like that happen - or, if it does happen, that they feel obliged to handle it without ever letting slip to their colleagues that they have another human being in their life.

I worked for a few years at Booz-Allen & Hamilton, and I went through a week-long new employee seminar. An HR rep gave a presentation on dress codes and expected behavior. She said "Your work site might allow jeans and t-shirts for everyday work. But look around this building at the V.P.s and see how they're dressed and how they behave. If you want to get ahead in this company, get a clue!"

That guy at work was well aware of such training. And he was equally judgmental. He once came from a meeting disparaging another employee's comments, then added "And my shirt probably cost more than his whole suit!"

Cool, but that's not actually answering the question I asked about him. Did he actually tell you his reasons for making the choices he did, or are those things you've assumed?

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't like an excess of showiness, but it seems right to me that gay people should be free in the office to talk about their relationships to the exact same extent as straight people typically do.

Yup. Beyond just regular social chat that most humans do, sometimes that kind of thing is important to talk about in the workplace.

I was co-managing a bunch of people during the pandemic. We were locked down on and off for almost a year here; when you're doing video chats with somebody who's working out of their bedroom and also wrangling a stir-crazy six-year-old, it's kind of hard not to learn things about their personal lives. My biggest concern as a manager at that time was helping staff get through it without burning out, and to do that you really have to understand something about the stresses they're under - and they have to feel like they can talk about those stresses without being judged as "unprofessional".

Even before pandemic it was an issue. I had a boss who was closeted; I'd made my guesses from some of the things he did and didn't say, but he was pretty tight-lipped about anything personal until his partner suddenly got seriously ill and he couldn't cope with talking around stuff any more. Going through that kind of crisis is bad enough without adding on the stress of having to come out to one's colleagues at the same time.

Some of the "personal life" stuff I mentioned in my previous post - if I hadn't been able to discuss those things with my colleagues, and make calls like "gonna work from home today because my partner needs me around", that would've worked out badly for everybody involved.

But the way some people react when those personal lives involve a touch of gayness...

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/754296564981432390/1065746931319578776/323444712_568361968223739_2120466870944434892_n.jpg

 

[ElectricBlue]

Now there's a bunch of folk who have never seen the spectrum of light on the cover of Dark Side. FFS.