Indoctrination / Doublethinkr/LGBT debates the meaning of the words "gay" and "lesbian"

submitted by NutterButterFlutterStill waving into the void from (old.reddit.com)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]reluctant_commenter 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think that OP may just be a garden-variety troll... just looking at their history, lol. Couldn't've happened to a nicer subreddit.

That said, the genuine responses the commenters are eyeroll-worthy.

"all women who are attracted to women are lesbians" apparently bisexuals don't exist..

Depends on what you mean by gay. But generally that's the correct term for a WlW.

"gay != lesbian" they've watered down the word "gay" so much... more homosexual erasure.

I mean, you can be a gay woman and not be lesbian. 

"Lesbians are non-men attracted to non-men" 1. we're called women, you sexist, 2. that is still incorrect, lesbians are women who are only attracted to women...

well if they're non-men attracted to non-men and the person is comfortable then yes it's not offensive at all, it's the correct term

I find it striking how insistent the commenters are on calling themselves gay when they are clearly not homosexual and a number don't even claim to be same sex attracted at all (and I have no idea how many bisexual-identified people on that sub are straight LARPers). It is so clear to me that so many straight people in the LGBTQ movement see "gay" not as a sexual orientation, but as a desirable aesthetic-- a set of trendy habits, a haircut, a certain style of clothes and mannerisms, which bestow virtue upon the posturer.

I truly hope LGB people can build spaces for ourselves and our own experiences, in the short term and the long run.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is so clear to me that so many straight people in the LGBTQ movement see "gay" not as a sexual orientation, but as a desirable aesthetic-- a set of trendy habits, a haircut, a certain style of clothes and mannerisms, which bestow virtue upon the posturer.

So basically same goes for queer. I noticed that it's more like a subculture than just being gay, bi or even asexual. Certain behaviors or way of clothing tends to be associated with being queer. So often that behavior can be described as childish and that's one of the things making me uncomfortable in such places. I am a grown person, not a teenager. Colorful hair with awful haircut is other thing. To be fair I prefer to look the opposite way to queer lol. So I look "straight." That reminds me how some kweers cry about the idea of not being seen as "queer enough." What the fuck does it even mean?

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

So basically same goes for queer.

Oh yeah for sure. I just hate that people in woke cubculture are trying to do this for the word "gay," too. It's harmful to LGB people.

To be fair I prefer to look the opposite way to queer lol.

Yeah same lol. I used to think I would not fit in at all with other LGB people because I thought that the subculture of dyed hair, awful haircut, language censoring and identity hierarchy was what most other LGB people believed in. But now I am aware that people from that subculture are overwhelmingly straight identity tourists, and that many (most?) LGB people don't participate in that subculture at all :)

That reminds me how some kweers cry about the idea of not being seen as "queer enough." What the fuck does it even mean?

They seem desperate to be seen as fitting the aesthetic, is how I have come to understand that phrase, in order to be accepted by other people who believe in their ideology, the "queer theory" flavor of postmodernism. (Maybe you were asking rhetorically but I am tired, sorry lol.) I am not in goth subculture but to draw an example, I would compare it to someone asking if they were "goth enough." Or better yet, a Christian asking if they were "righteous enough" or some shit. If you apply it to sexual orientation, it makes even less sense: logically, there's no such thing as "gay enough" or "bi enough"; you are either gay or not, bi or not, etc. Homophobic liberals who buy into "queer theory" don't seem to view LGB people as simply people living their lives who happen to date the same sex; they view "gay" and "queer" as pronouncements of beliefs and adherence to the postmodernist ideology of "queer theory". And there is no winning acceptance in postmodernist "queer theory".

Fixating on being perceived as "queer enough" is therefore a fruitless goal because 1) the goalposts keep moving in in this ideology and 2) more generally, basing your self-esteem on how others perceive you is not really a recipe for success...