Forum menu
All this talk of fluid has given me the strangest...oh, never mind.
None of the main characters in Priscilla were transvestites.
Two were drag queens (and gay), one was a transsexual.
Fair enough, I've not seen the film. It was just the first thing I thought of as an example of what some people might think a transvestite looks like. Which was kind of my point - in my limited experience from a sample size of two, transvestites don't usually walk around Tesco looking like drag queens.
Seems to me that far from supressing signs of the existence of bi-sexuality the media revel in it as it sells newspapers. I don’t think I was aware of bi-sexuality until all the the media hype around Iggy Pop and David Bowie.
As I’ve followed your suggestion to read up on bi-erasure perhaps you’ll follow my suggestion to read up on bi-sexual icons, Squirrelking.
I dnon’t think being publicly bi is as much of an issue as being publicly homosexual. The examples in my head say it’s more likely to make you more famous and richer.
Revelling in your smug ignorance as per, you have completely failed to understand either my point or the subject matter. But to punt your crap point back at you, what about Freddie Mercury? Biggest case of bi-erasure going there.
My point was that bi folk are treated either as too straight or too gay instead of people just getting their head around the simple fact that they are attracted to both sexes and just because they happen to be in a single/same sex relationship does not change that fact. Here's an excellent example of this sort of ignorance:
I’m not sure why Miley and Maggie got married to men, seems incompatible with their other expressed ideas.
How is that in any way incompatible with being bi/pan sexual?
Need to let people just be people and everyone being comfortable doing so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47359692
I think and hope society has moved on a huge amount with sexual and gender fluidity in recent times, and that's a great thing. I'm sure for folk where this is an issue, there's still huge way to go too - but hopefully for young people now, the world is a much more accepting place (than when I grew up in Sunderland in the 1970s!). And I work for a great company that is pushing the EDI agenda strongly, again, all good in my eyes.
But...I read a recent interview with Anna Calvi in Q Magazine. It made reference to how if you were on Facebook six years ago, you could only identify as male or female...but there are now websites keeping track of the range or number of gender fluidity 'types' (for want of a better word). It said there were 130 or so, and unfortunately I can't remember the link. But I looked at some of them and I have to admit I thought they were so weird, far-fetched etc, that I don't see the point or that they are related to gender at all. For example, 'astral gender' - " That means I identify with star dust and the cosmos more than with a human gender. In this gender I am mainly attracted to black holes when feeling masculine, and quasars when feeling feminine, which is fluid". I mean my first reaction is that it's just a load of bollocks! Male, female, transitioning, fluid etc I all get. So am I wrong (I'm sure folk will tell me I am), or can someone pleased educate me, why there seems to the need to have such a list, what am I missing?
For example, ‘astral gender’ – ” That means I identify with star dust and the cosmos more than with a human gender. In this gender I am mainly attracted to black holes when feeling masculine, and quasars when feeling feminine, which is fluid”.
Maybe just the same way as some people class themselves as jedi in religous surveys? Or speak klingon in language surveys? Either trolling or fantasising.
Just found myself taking at the radio with the lady on R4 saying that they are not women if they were previously men, they are trans. Agree with her.
That is their burden to bare, just the same as it is for dyslexic or colourblind folks.
One of my cousins tries ostracise herself from family life because she says she's different because she's a lesbian. Not one of us could give AF. She's Megan, and that's cool.
Really think it's a piss take was-mans trying to compete amongst the women in sport. If that sport is racing car driving, snooker, darts or video gaming, then no worries. But if they think their years of testosterone fuelled development hasn't given them the edge in power sports, despite the hormone drugs, then they are having a laugh.
Sometimes, I think we've gone too far trying to include and appease everyone. Such was the deal with the 5 Live interview on the subject that was called off because a was-man* kicked up a fuss.
Strangely, there aren't many was-womans speaking out about not being allowed to play with the boys. It's that because they know they are at a massive disadvantage despite being pumped full of enough hormones to grow a beard....?
*I know some p will find it offensive, but it's true. Biologically they were men /male (there was a piece on the news about being female did not equate being a lady.... to be fair I've met people with breasts and (presumably) vaginas that I of find it difficult to call a lady, but still) before they had any appendages chopped off and holes added.
Presumably we are all clear that you can still be heterosexual and supportive of other peoples’ choices. You don’t have to be pansexual to accept and support people who are.
^ people have been sacked for similar useage of that word
Fair enough, cougar.... Sorry you find it offensive and my post obnoxious.... It was a bit tongue in cheek, just my look on life.
However, I still stand by the reality of it. They were men /women and now, by their choosing, are not. They were not born a woman and as such shouldn't expect extra allowances. Such is life. Thee are greater injustices in the world than a woman-who-was-a-man (abbrv. was-man) not being allowed to compete in a level playing field with the rest of the woman-who-was-always-a-woman.
I'm fine if someone wants to identify as anything they want, just don't expect the rest of society (me included) to play along with their world of make believe.
They were man and as such have an advantage over those who have spent all their life with female anatomy and hormones.
Whereas any one can call a woman-who-was-a-man a was-man.
Well you are all smug at getting to offend people aren't you.
Wink 😉, Mike, wink......!
Honestly that doesn't excuse it at all.
BBC Panorama now
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0002tw1 (Trans Kids: Why Medicine Matters)
Looking back, I think I'm in the wing thread.... Thought this was the trans playing sport thread. Sorry.
Yeah, be pansexual, or as we used to say, bi. I reckon we've all got a bit of that in us.... Just don't understand why it should be re-labelled.
Agree with vickypea's comments on page one. It does seem like an oxymoron.
I just don’t see why people have to label everything if what they stand for is about no one being labelled. And that is an oxymoron to me.
If it helps your moral compass any, I’m a heterosexual white male and I think your post is one of the most obnoxious things I’ve ever read on STW.
No offence.
I think that using the n-word to score points is way more obnoxious.
No offence.
Quick tip - saying "n" word to score points ain't clever. What Cougar said was actually a fairly well reasoned way to make the point. The word isn't banned but it should be used with context and respectfully.
Quick tip – saying “n” word to score points ain’t clever. What Cougar said was actually a fairly well reasoned way to make the point. The word isn’t banned but it should be used with context and respectfully.
No, it was a cheap shot and it's a pity that you have chosen to support it.
Yeah, be pansexual, or as we used to say, bi. I reckon we’ve all got a bit of that in us…. Just don’t understand why it should be re-labelled.
Simply put - bisexual means the same as it always has, pansexual covers gender too. Basically covers the trans/fluid/etc. spectrum.
bisexual means the same as it always has, pansexual covers gender too.
Ah, not choosy.
I’m fine if someone wants to identify as anything they want, just don’t expect the rest of society (me included) to play along with their world of make believe.
Christ 🙄
🙁
@nealglover - Don't turn it into a religion thread as well, there are enough ignorant ramblings as it is! 😉
Fair point 👍
I first heard the term ‘pansexual’ about three years ago and when it was explained I thought it was bit pretentious; what was wrong with the term bisexual, after all that pretty much covers all bases.
That was until I discovered that i have a bit of a thing for mid-op transsexuals, as well as women and, as it turns out, the occasional bloke fantasy. Of course the whole ‘chick with a dick’ thing is as deep rooted in male sexual fantasy as, oh I don’t know, suckling I your mother’s breast, but imagine my surprise when I eventually found out it applied to me also. (Note that there are a fair few mid-op transsexuals who make quite a tidy living as such).
I now think the term pansexual is quite apt and fits pretty well to my experience of one day being staunchly heterosexual, the next engaging in bisexual fantasies and just for good measure a bit of chick with a dick on the weekend.
Hey ho, nowt queer as folk is there.
@alpin and @cougar you're a pair of ****ing ****s for posting that on a public forum. Offence taken and if you'd said it in front of me instead of the behind your keyboard you'd find out how big this snowflake hits. It not only reflects badly on yourselves, but on Singletrackworld.com for allowing it to stand and mountain biking too. STW is this what you want to be associated with?
If I've offended you then I'm sorry, my intention was quite the opposite.
We were arguing entirely opposite points though, so I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to?
Really @cougar? The N* word is one of the most offensive words in the English language regardless of your intentions, to claim ignorance is quite honestly pathetic. My kids have had to move schools, because of attitudes like that. My kids tried to bleach their skin at 5 years old, because of attitudes like that. My kids have wanted to die at the age of 6, because of attitudes like that. But it's a joke between white people so that's ok? No harm done in reinforcing your privilege with a wee bit of bantz
I still have no idea who Miley Cyrus is....
Not sure it was intended as a joke, it was supposed to be offensive though not in the context that you have taken it.
C'mon @cougar get it deleted. I would normal send a DM but yours are turned off because you're a mod.
I'm frankly amazed that you would use it anywhere, internet or real life, even to "make a point". Even worse the if you are offended then I'm sorry? Cmon mate we are past that. The word is offensive in and of itself. There is no "context" in which it is not.
Do the right thing. Delete the post and any others in the thread which reference it.
The last thing STW needs is for that to pop up in a Google search.
I’m frankly amazed that you would use it anywhere, internet or real life, even to “make a point”
More like trying to win a childish internet argument.
Looks like some people need to grow up and learn when to back away from the keyboard!
A mod posted that? I'm all for freedom of speech but with rights come responsibilities and as a moderator you have the responsibility to draw the line and minimise damage. How many people have read that? Your words are not only damaging to STW as a representative of the magazine but the cycling community as a whole, do cycling UK ect know that they associate with callous casual racism?
do cycling UK ect know that they associate with callous casual racism?
There is an obligation here to read the thread in context to that remark. It's a statement that immediately refers to the one above.
There is an obligation here to read the thread in context to that remark. It’s a statement that immediately refers to the one above.
Yes, the context matters here. Cougar was trying to get across that a previous poster (alpin) is a weapons-grade bell end and a bit of a **** as well. There was no need, as anyone with an ounce of compassion or sense could already see that.
Not defending use of that word though.
Contex doesn't matter in this case. Surprised someone so easily identifiable would be happy leaving it there for anyone with a grudge to exploit. Silly mistake I hope doesn't come back to haunt him.
There is an obligation here to read the thread in context to that remark. It’s a statement that immediately refers to the one above.
No. No. No. No. And No.
It is a statement containing a word which should not be there. Period.
Choose a different example with a different word. Apart from anything else it isn't true, even if it were true.
There's no context where a white person can use that word without it being prejudice. We use that word to divide and classify black people as criminal, stupid and sub human as was demonstrated in the context of the thread where people are being discussed as if they were objects. He knew what images that word would conjour up and used it to effect an impact. To then dismiss any "offense" and damage as the complainers sensitivity is really quite inflammatory
To then dismiss any “offense” and damage as the complainers sensitivity is really quite inflammatory
I'm not at all, as it reads he is using the word as an example or he power of a word to cause offence and why words can have such a serious impact. Much as the same way Tarentino directed his actors to use it.
There’s no context where a white person can use that word without it being prejudice.
I feel as strongly as you do about that word but the above statement simply isn’t true and Cougar’s use of it while wildly misguided is not based on prejudice. Going after him about it runs the risk of being misinterpreted as point scoring (I’m sure it’s not but it shows how easy it is to misinterpret something.)
@geetee1972 so turn on the complainant and make me the problem instead? Fair enough
Actually he's not using the word as an example of the power of a word to cause offence although he seems to have succeeded spectacularly well on that front . The way the post is written makes it sound like he's sorry for any offence caused by who he lives next to , not for his use of that word .
He may not be prejudiced but the word is. I so don't want to debate the merits because they are self evidently absent but it undermines his point because he can't live next to them unless he is contemptuous, derisive, or depreciative of them. So it doesn't work on any level.
From a dictionary:
is an infamous word in current English, so much so that when people are called upon to discuss it, they more often than not refer to it euphemistically as "the N-word." Its offensiveness is not new—dictionaries have been noting it for more than 150 years—but it has grown more pronounced with the passage of time. The word now ranks as almost certainly the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English, a term expressive of hatred and bigotry. Its self-referential uses by and among black people are not always intended or taken as offensive (although many object to those uses as well), but its use by a person who is not black to refer to a black person can only be regarded as a deliberate expression of contemptuous racism. Its offensiveness has grown to such an extent in recent decades that sense 3 is now rarely used and is itself likely to be found offensive. The word's occurrence in older literary works by such writers as Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens can be shocking and upsetting to contemporary readers.
Did the Definition Change?
There is a widespread belief that the original meaning of as defined in dictionaries, was "an ignorant person," and a related belief that current dictionary definitions describing its use as a hateful, racist epithet are a recent change. We do not know the source of those beliefs, but they are not accurate. The word was first included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary in 1864, at which time it was defined as a synonym of Negro, with a note indicating that it was used "in derision or depreciation." There has never been a definition like "an ignorant person" for this word in any subsequent dictionary published by this company. Nor do we know of such a definition in any earlier dictionary.
Aweeshoe. I will defend cougar too - he was using a word he knows is very offensive to point out where alpin had been very offensive.
cougar is not and never has been a bigot IMO and his use of the word was to equate alpins use of was- women with it to show how offensive it is. Poorly done tho IMO
I totally get where you are coming from tho - without knowing the people involved and the context provided its outrageous and I totally understand your outrage. I can't even bring myself to type it.
Mind you Scotroutes got banned for the use of the word in relation to the people who live in Nigg!
Cougar - could the point have not been made in a less offensive way? Perhaps asterix it out?
Aweeshoe - if you report the post other mods will see it as well and a consensus might arrive.
Is this the thread where lots of people, who, often by their own admission, struggle with the subtle nuances of context and social interaction come to have an argument?
+1 for Team Cougar.
He’s many things but he’s no racist.
Defend the person -fine. No problem. Defend the word - not possible. Defend the use of the word - nope, can't be done
Hate the sin not the sinner in other words. But let's be clear that there is no reason or excuse for the use of the word. That deserves censure even if the person doesn't.