heterosexism

According to wikipedia

Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that other people are heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior.

Click to expand...

I think that heterosexism does exist. Because if you're male, you're often asked about if you have a girlfriend and i assume that women are asked the same stuff like if they have a boyfriend. Which i feel that assuming that everyone is straight is heterosexist and i think we need stuff like pride parades to show that not everyone is straight.

axelthefox said:

According to wikipedia


I think that heterosexism does exist. Because if you're male, you're often asked about if you have a girlfriend and i assume that women are asked the same stuff like if they have a boyfriend. Which i feel that assuming that everyone is straight is heterosexist and i think we need stuff like pride parades to show that not everyone is straight.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "norm."

Sexual reproduction via two distinct sexes is the biological "norm" for Humanity. It accounts for the vast majority (94 - 95%?) of human sexual interactions, i.e. between males and females of our species.

Same-sex drives exist in but a tiny percentage (5 - 6%?) of the human population, and thus demonstrate the smallest level of sexual interactions.

Thus, IMO it is not "sexist" for someone to "assume" someone of the same sex would be of the same sexual drives, i.e. interested in someone of the opposite sex.

IMO it would only be "sexist" if a heterosexual male or female, once made aware of the difference in sexual interest, then disparages or otherwise attacks someone for this difference.

Captain Adverse said:

Depends on what you mean by "norm."

Sexual reproduction via two distinct sexes is the biological "norm" for Humanity. It accounts for the vast majority (94 - 95%?) of human sexual interactions, i.e. between males and females of our species.

Same-sex drives exist in but a tiny percentage (5 - 6%?) of the human population, and thus demonstrate the smallest level of sexual interactions.

Thus, IMO it is not "sexist" for someone to "assume" someone of the opposite sex would be of the same sexual drives, while someone of the same sex likely not.

IMO it would only be "sexist" if a heterosexual male or female, once made aware of the difference in sexual interest, then disparages or otherwise attacks someone for this difference.

Click to expand...

Reproduction and orientation are mostly unrelated. Gay people can and do routinely have children through a number of means. A number of straight people never have kids, and that number is growing in same countries.

Redress said:

Reproduction and orientation are mostly unrelated. Gay people can and do routinely have children through a number of means. A number of straight people never have kids, and that number is growing in same countries.

Click to expand...

Not the point. :no:

Reproduction is what is hardwired into the human species, like any other species in one form or another.

The point is that most human beings are "hardwired" to seek sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex. Thus they will likely "assume" other members of their own sex are too.

That is not hetero-"sexism." It is simply our nature as a species.

Meanwhile, it becomes an issue of some form of "sexism" to treat someone negatively if discovered that they don't follow this expectation.

Captain Adverse said:

Not the point. :no:

Reproduction is what is hardwired into the human species, like any other species in one form or another.

The point is that most human beings are "hardwired" to seek sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex. Thus they will likely "assume" other members of their own sex are too.

That is not "heterosexism." It is simply our nature as a species.

Meanwhile, it becomes an issue of some form of "sexism" to treat someone negatively if discovered that they don't follow this expectation.

Click to expand...

Again, orientation does not preclude reproduction. Until you understand that basic concept, you will never really understand what you are trying to talk about.

Redress said:

Again, orientation does not preclude reproduction. Until you understand that basic concept, you will never really understand what you are trying to talk about.

Click to expand...

You are creating a straw man argument. Nothing I said indicates that someone with a same-sex orientation is precluded from desiring to reproduce. I am aware that such individuals may take steps (adoption, surrogate, etc.).

Captain Adverse said:

You are creating a straw man argument. Nothing I said indicates that someone with a same-sex orientation is precluded from desiring to reproduce. I am aware that such individuals may take steps (adoption, surrogate, etc.).

Click to expand...

It is not a straw man. Your argument leans on the desire to reproduce as a reason why we should assume that other people are straight. But the desire to reproduce has very little to do with sexual orientation. Meaning your argument is facetious.

Norm: a standard or model or pattern regarded as typical

Opposite-sex attractions and relationships are indeed the norm. If 98% of the population is heterosexual and you are not, then you are outside the norm.

axelthefox said:

According to wikipedia

Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that other people are heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior.

Click to expand...

I think that heterosexism does exist. Because if you're male, you're often asked about if you have a girlfriend and i assume that women are asked the same stuff like if they have a boyfriend. Which i feel that assuming that everyone is straight is heterosexist and i think we need stuff like pride parades to show that not everyone is straight.

Click to expand...

This part I have to argue against. Otherwise there is a Righthandism that exists as well. The vast majority of people are Cis, Het, Righthanded. Such a presumption on a person is not invalid in and of itself. But that is only on an individual basis (you're an idiot if you assume that everyone is like that, especially in today's world) and until shown otherwise. And statistically speaking, all three are factually the norm. The problem comes when people try to treat something not the norm as an automatic negative. We've gotten over lefthandedness being bad despite being abnormal.

Captain Adverse said:

You are creating a straw man argument. Nothing I said indicates that someone with a same-sex orientation is precluded from desiring to reproduce. I am aware that such individuals may take steps (adoption, surrogate, etc.).

Click to expand...

The fact that you keep using the term reproduction says otherwise. Now I understand the point that you are trying to make, but your wording can leave a different impression. Especially when we look at the fact that there is a significant number of people who do not desire to reproduce, yet still seek sexual and/or emotional relationships.

maquiscat said:

The fact that you keep using the term reproduction says otherwise. Now I understand the point that you are trying to make, but your wording can leave a different impression. Especially when we look at the fact that there is a significant number of people who do not desire to reproduce, yet still seek sexual and/or emotional relationships.

Click to expand...

I use the point of reproduction because that is the PURPOSE of "sexuality." The drive to reproduce.

Once you have that foundation, you can discuss the variations that may occur, and why they occur at all.

The OP argues that it is "hetero-sexism" that prompts a male or female to assume someone of their own sex would most likely be "like them." I.e. seeking interactions (especially those that lead to the possibility of sex) with someone of the opposite sex. That this assumption indicates some artificial/personally-created bias caused by a dislike of bi- and homo-sexual individuals.

My argument is that such an assumption is natural, not artificially biased-based. That encountering the statistically rare differences in such sexual attraction, and then how the individual reacts is the true measure of such "sexism."

IMO to ignore the biological basis of "sex" and "sexual attraction" to instead act like it's all a "social construct" rather than a biological imperative is the true bias in the discussion.

axelthefox said:

According to wikipedia


I think that heterosexism does exist. Because if you're male, you're often asked about if you have a girlfriend and i assume that women are asked the same stuff like if they have a boyfriend. Which i feel that assuming that everyone is straight is heterosexist and i think we need stuff like pride parades to show that not everyone is straight.

Click to expand...

I'm curious are you offended if someone asks you if you have a significant other of the opposite sex?

Irredentist said:

It is not a straw man. Your argument leans on the desire to reproduce as a reason why we should assume that other people are straight. But the desire to reproduce has very little to do with sexual orientation. Meaning your argument is facetious.

Click to expand...

No his argument is we assume most people are straight because most people are. His argument is ironclad.

Captain Adverse said:

I use the point of reproduction because that is the PURPOSE of "sexuality." The drive to reproduce.

Once you have that foundation, you can discuss the variations that may occur, and why they occur at all.

Click to expand...

That's an assumed purposed, not a proven one, and not one that has any kind of universal agreement to it anymore, any more so than sexuality is a choice. The drive to reproduce and the sexual attraction to a given demographic (as a trend obviously since no one is attracted to all individuals of a given demographic) are separate drive. Otherwise, we would not have homosexuals desiring to reproduce, nor have heterosexuals with no drive to reproduce, or for that matter asexuals with no sex drive who wish to reproduce. The idea that the sex drive is driven primarily by the need to reproduce is one of our discarded theories based upon the information we have since learned.

The OP argues that it is "hetero-sexism" that prompts a male or female to assume someone of their own sex would most likely be "like them." I.e. seeking interactions (especially those that lead to the possibility of sex) with someone of the opposite sex. That this assumption indicates some artificial/personally-created bias caused by a dislike of bi- and homo-sexual individuals.

My argument is that such an assumption is natural, not artificially biased-based. That encountering the statistically rare differences in such sexual attraction, and then how the individual reacts is the true measure of such "sexism."

IMO to ignore the biological basis of "sex" and "sexual attraction" to instead act like it's all a "social construct" rather than a biological imperative is the true bias in the discussion.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with you here, especially the bold. I made the same argument.