Both: What do you think of the new Super Straight movement?

submitted by worried19 from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

But you're still straight, there is just a distinction for some people who will not be attracted to trans people.

The use of super creates a hiaerachy where being trans inclusive makes someone less straight.

And if you agree there can also be those who aren't attracted to trans people, how do we refer to that category?

Straight but not attracted to trans people or if you need a specialized term one that doesn’t create a hierarchy.

Also - why is it disgusting to be less straight (or less LGB)?

Never said it was. I said the idea is trans people are so disgusting ( wrong, gross, pick your insulting adjective of choice) that being trans inclusive lowers someone in the eyes of the “superstraight” they make a hierarchy and put themselves on top.

[–]emptiedriver 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

or if you need a specialized term one that doesn’t create a hierarchy...

It's not a hierarchy, it's just an intensifier - I really don't think there's any reason to think it's meant to make someone better, just "more" straight or gay. You are the one adding the judgment to that. You could be "super into Chinese food" or "super tired" - it doesn't put you above or below anyone. It just describes state of things. A super straight man would be attracted to a woman who was AFAB and lived her whole life female. If she had been AMAB and was now female, he'd have to have a more flexible type of sexuality. But neither is a higher or lower type of sexuality, just more or less intensely straight.

the idea is trans people are so disgusting... being trans inclusive lowers someone

This is coming from you. I don't want to condescendingly tell you to talk to your therapist, but seriously, I do not see this at all.

So is it just the word "super", then? If they had called themselves "bio straights" or "chromosexuals" you would have been fine with it? I pretty much think the whole thing started as an off-the-cuff joke, that gathered steam because there was a void that needed filling, so I doubt the name was given a lot of thought. It's just, "extreme straight."

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

So is it just the word "super", then? If they had called themselves "bio straights" or "chromosexuals" you would have been fine with it?

It would certainly at least be less of an issue since it doesn’t imply superiority or condescend to trans inclusive people like “super straight” does. Though extreme straight still has the same problems of saying someone is less straight for being trans inclusive.

[–]emptiedriver 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It would certainly at least be less of an issue since it doesn’t imply superiority or condescend to trans inclusive people like “super straight” does.

But it would still be a little bit of an issue? Are we 100% agreed that it's 100% awesome and everyone can have their own sexuality, or is there a reason to think something's fishy if they are excluding trans people from their sexual orientation?

Though extreme straight still has the same problems of saying someone is less straight for being trans inclusive.

a) why is it a problem to be less straight? Or just, normally straight instead of extra-straight? b) is it not reasonable to say that someone who is attracted only to those who were born and remain the opposite sex is "more opposite sex attracted" than someone who can also be attracted to those born the same sex but who now live as opposite sex? It's like if you have "extreme taste" and can catch nuances that not everyone does, but they're still there.

Either everyone straight can be attracted to the whole group who identify as opposite sex, and those who say they can't be are only saying that due to bigotry, or there is a categorical distinction which allows for a sexual response only to that segment of the population who have also been the opposite sex from birth and on a biological level. If it's the latter, they have "more" requirements. Therefore, they are "more" straight. It does not make them better. It does not include judgment.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

a) why is it a problem to be less straight? Or just, normally straight instead of extra-straight?

The existence of another label itself, particularly a hierarchical one, as opposed to just being a subsection or straight fundamentally says trans women aren’t women and trans men aren’t men. That’s always going to be transphobic on some level.

B: same as above, the hiaerachy necessaarilly disrespects trans identities whereas just being a straight person who isn’t interested in trans people doesn’t

Are we 100% agreed that it's 100% awesome and everyone can have their own sexuality, or is there a reason to think something's fishy if they are excluding trans people from their sexual orientation?

You are allowed to be into whatever consenting adult you are into or not, the issue is with creating a label implying straight people are less straight for being trans inclusive since it disrespects their sexual identity and autonomy as well as insulting trans people. This is distinct from for instance Just saying you are straight but not interested in trans people.