I love the queers

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I checked in at my schools to see what the clubs are called; PCC has a Queer Alliance, and PSU has the Queer Resource Center and Q Club.

I think that it's probably pretty safe/inoffensive to simply use "Queer" or "Non-traditional" to refer to whatever falls outside of the dominant social norm.

Non-traditional seems like it would be the way to go. 

In what might be seen as a bit of a contradiction (but isn't), I am all about the pride parade, because it desensitizes people to the existence of Gays, etc.  It's easy to hate people you've never seen.  Once they're PEOPLE, it's harder to hate.

Which is one of my three objections to using labels.  They classify and dehumanize.

And I view that as being VERY important, as the father of a non-traditional child in a town full of self-righteous Calvinists.

I think that labels are useful, but I also think that they are far too frequently mistaken for identity. People getting burned up because someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun or label for them just strikes me as immature and foolish. It's like a straight man being offended because he's mistaken for gay, or like me being offended because people assume I don't have kids.

[Juana]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, here. If we can't have a word to describe certain categories of people, we can't explain the social circumstances that create problems for them.

Nor can they be special, I suppose.  Thing is, I don't think there's a single person in America that doesn't understand the social penalties for being "non-traditional"...Even the people that gleefully inflict those penalties. 

It's not really about being special, at least for most people, I think. There are probably spechul snowflakes, but I've never met one. We'd really rather be treated with the same respect as everyone else.

We can't protect them from hate crimes and discrimination.

Sure we can.  I'm not saying we give up the descriptions when appropriate (say, in a criminal investigation), I'm saying the acronym and the rather aggressive self-labelling can go.

People who are persecuted tend to start to wear whatever it is that causes them to be persecuted as a badge of honor. In a society hell bent on making you fit into their pre-defined boxes, refusing to be ashamed, etc. is an act of defiance.
There's also the thing where these things are important ways people see themselves. This because even more apparent to the person when what they are isn't the norm.

(and I think asking about pronouns is enormously important. Some people, like Kai and I, don't care which ones others use for us, but it can be extremely upsetting for other people to be mislabeled because it's an issue of respecting a hugely key part of their identities).

Then that's a problem in their heads, not mine. 

Would you refuse to call me a "they" if I asked you to? Or if a trans gal asked you to call her a "her"? It's really that simple, respecting people's identities.

Oh, certainly it is an indictment on the US that this is a fucking issue. But it's going to continue to be an issue unless we actively work to make it not an issue (whether this is just raising one's kids to not give a fuck whether a person is a he, a she, or a zhe, or being a politician who writes equality legislation). To do so, we need to be able to label these people so it can stop being an issue. We can talk about dropping the acronyms when one in twelve trans* women is not a murder victim.

The way you make it not an issue is to A)  Legislate mandated protections, and B)  Make those who get nuts about it look just as marginalized as they are.   The whole country is swinging left right now, momentum can be a hell of a lot more effective than self-imposing a label on yourself that ENFORCES the rather minor differences involved.  Labeling serves only two purposes:  First, to shove people in convenient boxes so that they can be persecuted more effectively, and second, to make the labeled people feel special or in fact persecuted.

Labeling will not stop a single trans person from being murdered.

A and B, 100% agreed.
These groups were persecuted before there was a label, Roger. Labels can be words to describe an identity, and people's identities are important. Would you take away words a person uses to describe themselves?

I'm not saying it will. I'm saying labels can protect people legally, and I'm saying they have a place in describing people in specific contexts (ie, a study examining how many people who defy gender expectations are homeless/suffer housing instability - "transgender" is the word for gender-defiers). I'm also saying some people use the word to explain themselves, both to themselves and to others. I'm rather strongly against taking away people's words.

I checked in at my schools to see what the clubs are called; PCC has a Queer Alliance, and PSU has the Queer Resource Center and Q Club.

I think that it's probably pretty safe/inoffensive to simply use "Queer" or "Non-traditional" to refer to whatever falls outside of the dominant social norm.

Non-traditional seems like it would be the way to go. 

In what might be seen as a bit of a contradiction (but isn't), I am all about the pride parade, because it desensitizes people to the existence of Gays, etc.  It's easy to hate people you've never seen.  Once they're PEOPLE, it's harder to hate.

Which is one of my three objections to using labels.  They classify and dehumanize.

And I view that as being VERY important, as the father of a non-traditional child in a town full of self-righteous Calvinists.

I think that labels are useful, but I also think that they are far too frequently mistaken for identity. People getting burned up because someone mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun or label for them just strikes me as immature and foolish. It's like a straight man being offended because he's mistaken for gay, or like me being offended because people assume I don't have kids.

Hmm, when I use them, I'm using them to describe identities. Not as identities, per se. It's like a post-it note on a box - the box is that facet of a person's identity, the post-it note is the word they use to describe it.
I'm also gonna note that there's a subculture that has sprung up with these things.

I shall have to think about the dehumanizing argument. I see it, but I'm not entirely sure if I agree.

[Juana]

Also, ftr, I prefer "queer" to non-traditional when it comes to talking about me. Queer comes with ideas that I very strong agree with. It's also a reclaimed word, and I am all in favor of saying FUCK YOU to people who want me to fit their boxes.

[Don Coyote]

So would I, because that would mean the norm has changed enough to include us painlessly. But until "what are your pronouns?" is in general etiquette and no one bats an eye at the sexuality sphere, there's going to be one by necessity.

I know this might end up skewing things off on a tangent, but are you suggesting that everyone should on first meeting someone ask them what pronoun they want to be addressed with? Wouldn't be simpler to address someone by the pronoun that seems closest to how they appear until that person indicates otherwise?

[Juana]

So would I, because that would mean the norm has changed enough to include us painlessly. But until "what are your pronouns?" is in general etiquette and no one bats an eye at the sexuality sphere, there's going to be one by necessity.

I know this might end up skewing things off on a tangent, but are you suggesting that everyone should on first meeting someone ask them what pronoun they want to be addressed with? Wouldn't be simpler to address someone by the pronoun that seems closest to how they appear until that person indicates otherwise?

Yes. And yes, but I don't see why it's hard to say four extra words when you meet a person.

[trippinprincezz13]

So would I, because that would mean the norm has changed enough to include us painlessly. But until "what are your pronouns?" is in general etiquette and no one bats an eye at the sexuality sphere, there's going to be one by necessity.

I know this might end up skewing things off on a tangent, but are you suggesting that everyone should on first meeting someone ask them what pronoun they want to be addressed with? Wouldn't be simpler to address someone by the pronoun that seems closest to how they appear until that person indicates otherwise?

Yes. And yes, but I don't see why it's hard to say four extra words when you meet a person.

You are seriously suggesting that every time I meet a new person I should ask them what pronoun to call them by? Seems like right off the bat as trying to label someone. Might as well get their sexual preference, religion, political views, favorite foods, musical tastes etc. right up front, filled out on the proper forms as well, so I can fit them right away into a neat little box to place on the shelf. Can't I just address everyone as a person?

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

Speaking as a non-traditional sort of person, I couldn't give a fuck less what people call me or what pronouns they use or whatever else if you paid me to. It's no one's business but mine and whoever I'm canoodling with.

That being said I know a lot of people who are 'healthy plurals' who get offended if you don't notice when who's fronting changes and thus the pronouns. There are many people in my  community who think the only way to achieve quality is to shove their differences down everyone's throat until the mainstream chokes and eventually swallows it.

And that's fine, if that's the route they wanna take. But there's going to be an associated struggle with that path. After all, the non-traditional folk didn't like being force fed bullshit all their lives until they grew a pair, did they? Why would someone else like it?

I think there should be one set of pronouns period. Forget gender distinction all together, in societal and work-related situations. Save it for medical and/or legal issues, if at all.

[Don Coyote]

So would I, because that would mean the norm has changed enough to include us painlessly. But until "what are your pronouns?" is in general etiquette and no one bats an eye at the sexuality sphere, there's going to be one by necessity.

I know this might end up skewing things off on a tangent, but are you suggesting that everyone should on first meeting someone ask them what pronoun they want to be addressed with? Wouldn't be simpler to address someone by the pronoun that seems closest to how they appear until that person indicates otherwise?

Yes. And yes, but I don't see why it's hard to say four extra words when you meet a person.

You are seriously suggesting that every time I meet a new person I should ask them what pronoun to call them by? Seems like right off the bat as trying to label someone. Might as well get their sexual preference, religion, political views, favorite foods, musical tastes etc. right up front, filled out on the proper forms as well, so I can fit them right away into a neat little box to place on the shelf. Can't I just address everyone as a person?

That was pretty much what I was getting at.

I also had my wife go off on a tangent about Japanese honorifics.

[Juana]

So would I, because that would mean the norm has changed enough to include us painlessly. But until "what are your pronouns?" is in general etiquette and no one bats an eye at the sexuality sphere, there's going to be one by necessity.

I know this might end up skewing things off on a tangent, but are you suggesting that everyone should on first meeting someone ask them what pronoun they want to be addressed with? Wouldn't be simpler to address someone by the pronoun that seems closest to how they appear until that person indicates otherwise?

Yes. And yes, but I don't see why it's hard to say four extra words when you meet a person.

You are seriously suggesting that every time I meet a new person I should ask them what pronoun to call them by? Seems like right off the bat as trying to label someone. Might as well get their sexual preference, religion, political views, favorite foods, musical tastes etc. right up front, filled out on the proper forms as well, so I can fit them right away into a neat little box to place on the shelf. Can't I just address everyone as a person?

Yes, I am seriously suggesting that. And no, that's not the same at all. In fact, it's completely the reverse because not asking = speaking to them as if they were a 'he' or a 'she' - that's you labeling them, simply because you don't want to ask four extra words.

[Juana]

Speaking as a non-traditional sort of person, I couldn't give a fuck less what people call me or what pronouns they use or whatever else if you paid me to. It's no one's business but mine and whoever I'm canoodling with.

That being said I know a lot of people who are 'healthy plurals' who get offended if you don't notice when who's fronting changes and thus the pronouns. There are many people in my  community who think the only way to achieve quality is to shove their differences down everyone's throat until the mainstream chokes and eventually swallows it.

And that's fine, if that's the route they wanna take. But there's going to be an associated struggle with that path. After all, the non-traditional folk didn't like being force fed bullshit all their lives until they grew a pair, did they? Why would someone else like it?

I think there should be one set of pronouns period. Forget gender distinction all together, in societal and work-related situations. Save it for medical and/or legal issues, if at all.

Finnish apparently has that.

[Juana]

So would I, because that would mean the norm has changed enough to include us painlessly. But until "what are your pronouns?" is in general etiquette and no one bats an eye at the sexuality sphere, there's going to be one by necessity.

I know this might end up skewing things off on a tangent, but are you suggesting that everyone should on first meeting someone ask them what pronoun they want to be addressed with? Wouldn't be simpler to address someone by the pronoun that seems closest to how they appear until that person indicates otherwise?

Yes. And yes, but I don't see why it's hard to say four extra words when you meet a person.

You are seriously suggesting that every time I meet a new person I should ask them what pronoun to call them by? Seems like right off the bat as trying to label someone. Might as well get their sexual preference, religion, political views, favorite foods, musical tastes etc. right up front, filled out on the proper forms as well, so I can fit them right away into a neat little box to place on the shelf. Can't I just address everyone as a person?

Yes, I am seriously suggesting that. And no, that's not the same at all. In fact, it's completely the reverse because not asking = speaking to them as if they were a 'he' or a 'she' - that's you labeling them, simply because you don't want to ask four extra words.

Also also, it's not the same as asking about religion, sexuality, et al. It's asking them how to speak to and about them, that's all. That's pretty basic, imo.

[Don Coyote]

So would I, because that would mean the norm has changed enough to include us painlessly. But until "what are your pronouns?" is in general etiquette and no one bats an eye at the sexuality sphere, there's going to be one by necessity.

I know this might end up skewing things off on a tangent, but are you suggesting that everyone should on first meeting someone ask them what pronoun they want to be addressed with? Wouldn't be simpler to address someone by the pronoun that seems closest to how they appear until that person indicates otherwise?

Yes. And yes, but I don't see why it's hard to say four extra words when you meet a person.

You are seriously suggesting that every time I meet a new person I should ask them what pronoun to call them by? Seems like right off the bat as trying to label someone. Might as well get their sexual preference, religion, political views, favorite foods, musical tastes etc. right up front, filled out on the proper forms as well, so I can fit them right away into a neat little box to place on the shelf. Can't I just address everyone as a person?

Yes, I am seriously suggesting that. And no, that's not the same at all. In fact, it's completely the reverse because not asking = speaking to them as if they were a 'he' or a 'she' - that's you labeling them, simply because you don't want to ask four extra words.

Also also, it's not the same as asking about religion, sexuality, et al. It's asking them how to speak to and about them, that's all. That's pretty basic, imo.

So I should ask every commissioned officer I interact with whether to call them "sir" or "ma'am"?

[Juana]

I would very much like to say yes, but trans* soldiers weren't covered by the DADT repeal. So, no, don't. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't out them, because I think you're a good person, but nevertheless.

[LMNO]

I'm gonna use the pronoun they're presenting. 
The drag queen is a she
The drag king is a he
The femme gay man is a he
The butch lesbian is a she
The MtoF trans is a she
The FtoM trans is a he

And if they're somewhere in the middle, when I'm introduced I'll go by biology first, because I know they're going to end up telling me what to call them eventually.

[Juana]

I have people I've been friends with since I was in the single digit age bracket I've never told. I don't know that I'll ever tell them I'd prefer 'they'. But if someone asks me up front, I'm probably going to tell them.