• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Non-binary - serious question

What's sad is the baggage humans have heaped on sex, and the endless search for black and white, yes or no, normal or abnormal. Tying the sex act (and all variances and proclivities) to love, religion, gender, and whatever else we do, is self defeating. Sex is a lot like food; no two tastes are exactly alike, and unless it's people on the menu or force-feeding, most any taste is acceptable. Its just sex folks!
 
What's sad is the baggage humans have heaped on sex, and the endless search for black and white, yes or no, normal or abnormal. Tying the sex act (and all variances and proclivities) to love, religion, gender, and whatever else we do, is self defeating. Sex is a lot like food; no two tastes are exactly alike, and unless it's people on the menu or force-feeding, most any taste is acceptable. Its just sex folks!
Seeing that avatar and reading this post... Lol. Once it downed in me what that was a picture of I couldn't stop laughing.

I agree with the idea. To each their own.
 
Retaliation? For asking a question? Either you only know psychopaths or you ask questions via punching people in the nose.
I've encountered it myself. I asked someone who identified as Queer as to what that meant exactly, and they responded with something along the lines of "look it up. It's not my job to educate you"
 
I've encountered it myself. I asked someone who identified as Queer as to what that meant exactly, and they responded with something along the lines of "look it up. It's not my job to educate you"

That’s not retaliation. IT’s a perfectly acceptable and proper response depending on the entire context of the exchange.

And small sample sizes are small sample sizes. Maybe that person was having a bad day. (If you tell me a story of others along the same lines, that tells me it’s end user error.)
 
Retaliation? For asking a question? Either you only know psychopaths or you ask questions via punching people in the nose.

Or maybe the cancel culture scares people and they don't want to lose their jobs, reputations, and have a lunatic group of fascists attempt to destroy their livelihoods.
 
I've encountered it myself. I asked someone who identified as Queer as to what that meant exactly, and they responded with something along the lines of "look it up. It's not my job to educate you"

It's the response of the intellectually lazy and perpetually offended.
 
Or maybe the cancel culture scares people and they don't want to lose their jobs, reputations, and have a lunatic group of fascists attempt to destroy their livelihoods.

So you are asking the cancel culture about their own sexuality, not an actual human being that you are curious about?
 
So you are asking the cancel culture about their own sexuality, not an actual human being that you are curious about?

Ya, I am done with you. You're either a complete dope or you cannot understand nuance. Either way, but bye.
 
Ya, I am done with you. You're either a complete dope or you cannot understand nuance. Either way, but bye.

You are just in this thread to scream about people you find “weird.” IT’s society that’s done with folks like you.

Enjoy the asteroid heading your way, it’s called progress. Buttbye.
 
What does non-binary mean? I'm requesting more than a Google definition please.

If you are a person that identifies as a non-binary, would you enlighten?

Is it an internal struggle, an unwillingness to be labeled or maybe a public cry for help?

Context: Someone very close to me has recently decided they are non-binary and I very much want to understand.
There's 10 kinds of people- those who understand the binary system and those who don't.
 
That’s not retaliation. IT’s a perfectly acceptable and proper response depending on the entire context of the exchange.

And small sample sizes are small sample sizes. Maybe that person was having a bad day. (If you tell me a story of others along the same lines, that tells me it’s end user error.)
The medium doesn't reflect the tone. And I wasn't trying to make a claim on frequency, just saying they are out there, and hostile.

And in the end, it really is their responsibility to educate others, especially with regards to themselves. The labels are black and white defined, and as such, how they use it might not be how the last person who taught me their definition uses it.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
There's 10 kinds of people- those who understand the binary system and those who don't.
I think in this case it's those who use the binary system and those who don't.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
The medium doesn't reflect the tone. And I wasn't trying to make a claim on frequency, just saying they are out there, and hostile.

And in the end, it really is their responsibility to educate others, especially with regards to themselves. The labels are black and white defined, and as such, how they use it might not be how the last person who taught me their definition uses it.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

That response is not hostile. Your notion that it’s their responsibility to explain something is entitled. They don’t have to explain anything, you can just let the live their lives same as you would others. If you are curious and the person you’re speaking to does not wish to discuss has nothign to do with any other human being, or perhaps if it does it’s a reflection on the person who approached them with the attitude that they were owed an explaination.
 
I've encountered it myself. I asked someone who identified as Queer as to what that meant exactly, and they responded with something along the lines of "look it up. It's not my job to educate you"
That sounds to me like somebody that is just identifying that way to be different. That sounds like a defensive response.

Queer has changed meaning from just a slur against gay people to something else entirely. That term seemed to hold a short lived meaning that wasn't a slur but a catch all term for LGBT, but now it seems heterosexual people are using it.
 
That response is not hostile. Your notion that it’s their responsibility to explain something is entitled. They don’t have to explain anything, you can just let the live their lives same as you would others. If you are curious and the person you’re speaking to does not wish to discuss has nothign to do with any other human being, or perhaps if it does it’s a reflection on the person who approached them with the attitude that they were owed an explaination.
There is a difference between "I don't wish to discuss it" and "looking up yourself". Especially if they want you to treat them a certain way. Sure I can look it up on the internet, but if what I find is not exactly how you are treating the label, then you have no room to complain when I am not treating you they way you think I should based on your definition of the label. The entitlement is the thinking I should know your specific view of the label. It's no different than expecting someone to already know your specific pronouns just by claiming you're non-binary. I've encountered them too.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
That sounds to me like somebody that is just identifying that way to be different. That sounds like a defensive response.

Queer has changed meaning from just a slur against gay people to something else entirely. That term seemed to hold a short lived meaning that wasn't a slur but a catch all term for LGBT, but now it seems heterosexual people are using it.
Which is not the way that particular person used it. From what I have gathered, queer now has more to do with gender identity than sexual orientation. But with the shift ing definitions who knows. The fact that labels are not set in stone is a key point in my BDSM 101 class. It's really no different.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Sounds like an indecisive one to me...o_O
 
There is a difference between "I don't wish to discuss it" and "looking up yourself". Especially if they want you to treat them a certain way. Sure I can look it up on the internet, but if what I find is not exactly how you are treating the label, then you have no room to complain when I am not treating you they way you think I should based on your definition of the label. The entitlement is the thinking I should know your specific view of the label. It's no different than expecting someone to already know your specific pronouns just by claiming you're non-binary. I've encountered them too.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

THey want you to treat them as you would anyone else.

It sounds to me like the only folks doing the complaining are the folks whining that other adults wont’ stop what they’re doing to defend their lives to a bunch of busybodies who seem to be more obsessed with others’ pronouns than they are.

I wonder if I spoke to these folks what catagory *you* would fit in when discussing the types of people they run into.
 
THey want you to treat them as you would anyone else.

It sounds to me like the only folks doing the complaining are the folks whining that other adults wont’ stop what they’re doing to defend their lives to a bunch of busybodies who seem to be more obsessed with others’ pronouns than they are.

I wonder if I spoke to these folks what catagory *you* would fit in when discussing the types of people they run into.
Again lack of context here and my fault for not putting it all out there. Person in question was complaining about not being treated as a queer person should be. We didn't even know they were prior to that statement, so it wasn't as if we were doing anything with them we weren't with everyone else. So I asked what queer meant because it was obvious they weren't talking homosexuality which is what it meant when I was growing up. That's when I got the response I did.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Again lack of context here and my fault for not putting it all out there. Person in question was complaining about not being treated as a queer person should be. We didn't even know they were prior to that statement, so it wasn't as if we were doing anything with them we weren't with everyone else. So I asked what queer meant because it was obvious they weren't talking homosexuality which is what it meant when I was growing up. That's when I got the response I did.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

I do not care about your anecdotal incident that is not representative of anything. Who is “we?” Are you management in a company and an employee brought it to your attention they felt they were being singled out? There is no means to adjudicate this scenario as none of us can verify it happened or happened in the way you are describing.

Why does this experience stand in for anything of value? What is it you feel you are unable to address, and what do you feel is harmful to you as an individual by being unable to...whatever it is you feel you need these people to declare to you. You are coming across as a very entitled cis person who already places yourself in a position to judge the “value” of a person who does not represent what you consider the norm.

If you are not this thing, then I’d suggest you re-evaluate your framing of things. It’s getting worse the more words you apply.
 
I do not care about your anecdotal incident that is not representative of anything. Who is “we?” Are you management in a company and an employee brought it to your attention they felt they were being singled out? There is no means to adjudicate this scenario as none of us can verify it happened or happened in the way you are describing.

Why does this experience stand in for anything of value? What is it you feel you are unable to address, and what do you feel is harmful to you as an individual by being unable to...whatever it is you feel you need these people to declare to you. You are coming across as a very entitled cis person who already places yourself in a position to judge the “value” of a person who does not represent what you consider the norm.

If you are not this thing, then I’d suggest you re-evaluate your framing of things. It’s getting worse the more words you apply.

This happened at a munch for a BDSM group. So we had all kinds there, of pretty much every orientation and gender. The only point I've been tryIng to make is that while most will be glad to inform you as to what they are and such, assuming you are coming from a place of trying to understand, there are indeed those who will pretty much attack you for it, as the one poster worried. One should still try to understand and understand what X means to a given individual.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
This happened at a munch for a BDSM group. So we had all kinds there, of pretty much every orientation and gender. The only point I've been tryIng to make is that while most will be glad to inform you as to what they are and such, assuming you are coming from a place of trying to understand, there are indeed those who will pretty much attack you for it, as the one poster worried. One should still try to understand and understand what X means to a given individual.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

“Those” are referring to humans in general. You keep applying it to a group as though this reaction is specific to a group vs just humans being.

You do not sound open. You do not sound inquisitive. You sound like a straight guy who refers to others as “all kinds.”
 
“Those” are referring to humans in general. You keep applying it to a group as though this reaction is specific to a group vs just humans being.

You do not sound open. You do not sound inquisitive. You sound like a straight guy who refers to others as “all kinds.”
The only group I am applying anything to is individuals who seem to think everyone should already know what all the orientations and genders and roles are all about and get angry if you try to learn from them. Depending on one's definition, I am either straight or bisexual. I am sexually attracted to women regardless of what genitals they have. I call that straight, others claim I am bi.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Which is not the way that particular person used it. From what I have gathered, queer now has more to do with gender identity than sexual orientation. But with the shift ing definitions who knows. The fact that labels are not set in stone is a key point in my BDSM 101 class. It's really no different.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Labels are really for other people. There is also a term used gender queer. It seems to be making a bunch of different labels that describe every individual but there is a point when it's pointless because if you have to explain what the label means it losses it's purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom