LGBTQQIAAP ICM

[Fergenaprido]

Thanks for sharing that Knalds. Good video. Never heard of the guy before but I may check out some of his other ones.

Also, congrats for recently passing 10,000 posts on the forum.

[Armoreska]

um i dont think he's right

[Fergenaprido]

um i dont think he's right

The guy in the video? Which part(s)?

[Knaldskalle]

Thanks for sharing that Knalds. Good video. Never heard of the guy before but I may check out some of his other ones.

Also, congrats for recently passing 10,000 posts on the forum.

I have become a "fan" of Beau's. I don't always agree with him (that would be disturbing), but I always find that he has a point worth considering even if I disagree.

And thanks for the congrats. No big deal to me, to be honest - but I guess it's nice that someone noticed...?

[Armoreska]

um i dont think he's right

The guy in the video? Which part(s)?

that English ever had non-binary singular pronouns

[xianjiro]

what do you call thee/thou/thy/thine then?

[Prat]

Thank you for your answers, especially Fergenaprido for the links. Xianjiro, I wasn't sure it was just your idea on the moment but in the end, it seems that there is some issues with the sound in a word, like for "woman" or "women".

In France they are other debates regarding the language. Some non-binanry pronouns (like "iel" which is a mix of "il" and "elle", the masculine and the feminine pronouns) even if I don't know the consequences in conjugation, what some call the "inclusive writing" or even the feminization of some professions. I don't think every proposition can be relevant, but I like, sometimes, to know about the origin of those ideas so I can understand better the reasons why some people want these changes.

I'll read the articles from Fergenaprido and will took a look at the video.

[Armoreska]

what do you call thee/thou/thy/thine then?

we're talking 3rd person. obviously 1st and 2nd person ones are gender neutral.

[Fergenaprido]

what do you call thee/thou/thy/thine then?

we're talking 3rd person. obviously 1st and 2nd person ones are gender neutral.

In Old English, that was "hit".

In Modern English, it would be "it", or "one" if you want to be formal. One generally doesn't use "it" to refer humans unless they're babies anymore, though, as it is considered dehumanizing.

But "they" has also been used, even by people who probably don't realize they're using it: "Someone was at the door." "What did they want?"

Here's a good summary table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_personal_pronouns

All in all, these types of "change is bad" arguments don't hold up for me when it comes to English. All languages are constantly evolving, and from the few examples mentioned in this thread one can see how it's changed from Old English to Middle English to Modern English. Plus, given that there is no "English Academy" to standardize the language like there is in French, Spanish, and others, a word becomes "correct" when it's adopted by a large section of the population and/or is added to one of the major dictionaries. I don't always like that, as I was raised to speak proper English by my mother (thus my tendency to correct people, though my intention is always instructive rather than punitive), but I recognize that this can come across as elitist/classist and is not often necessary. We don't always get our way.

[Armoreska]

Yeah I've been subverting language norms and other norms since school even though I've been top of the class in all languages other than Ukrainian (3/4 then) throughout the whole ordeal.

People still use IT with animals which is considered depersonifying.

[xianjiro]

Well, unfortunately, "it" for people has an unfortunate history when talking about gender non-conforming people. Drag, trans, etc were not infrequently referred to as "it" in the 80s (and probably before and after). While there might have been some confusion on the part of the speaker (I don't know if it's a man or woman.), more often than not it was all about dehumanizing the individual because that person didn't conform to prescribed gender roles. The usage was along the lines of calling someone dyke or fag or queer. Also, some used "heshe" in a similar way and while offensive, it didn't seem quite as hateful as "it".

But it's hard to stand up for "correct grammar" and enforce its usage on others while saying it's okay to be a boy in a dress, trans, or however one expresses one's own gender identity.

[Fergenaprido]

But it's hard to stand up for "correct grammar" and enforce its usage on others while saying it's okay to be a boy in a dress, trans, or however one expresses one's own gender identity.

I don't see the contradiction here. Unless putting "correct grammar" in quotes means something specific?

[xianjiro]

But it's hard to stand up for "correct grammar" and enforce its usage on others while saying it's okay to be a boy in a dress, trans, or however one expresses one's own gender identity.

I don't see the contradiction here. Unless putting "correct grammar" in quotes means something specific?

In my mind what we refer to as correct can apply to language and, in this case, personal appearance. I know my father would be mortified if I showed up in a dress because women wear dresses and I've got a penis, therefore it's fundamentally, by definition, "wrong" for me to wear a dress. How is that rule different than quoting a grammar rule, for example, at one point I believe we disagreed on how to show possession when the list originator's name ends with the letter s. There are clearly two schools of thought on the subject and I was taught you use "Anthology Film Archives' Essential Cinema" NOT "Anthology Film Archives's Essential Cinema". So what is really correct? Even the Grammar Book's author recognizes the disagreement https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp . Dictionary.com also discusses the issue https://www.dictionary.com/e/whats-the- ... he-word-s/ . Also http://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/pun ... ossessives which provides the British viewpoint.

I'm certain I can find lots of links that say s's is correct and s' is correct, plus loads of special circumstances. So what is correct? As you say, we don't have an English Academy and even if we did, would it be the Australian English Academy or the British English Academy or the Canadian English Academy or the Hindustani English Academy?

There's also the whole Oxford Comma debate. Or is it aluminium or aluminum? Labor or labour? An eraser or rubber? End of day for me, is can it be understood? Does it get your message across to your intended audience? That matters a helluvalot more than grammar rules (and this is coming from someone who puts a lot of effort into his posts).

If we're saying that society can't impose a dress code, how can we say we support a grammar code? Okay, that's my thinking and only my thinking, but I do try to look for inconsistencies in my core belief structure since I don't accept the one's offered by the usual suspects ((dis)organized religions).

[Knaldskalle]

In Modern English, it would be "it", or "one" if you want to be formal. One generally doesn't use "it" to refer humans unless they're babies anymore, though, as it is considered dehumanizing.

That reminded me of a curiosity in German. "The man" is "der Mann", using the German masculine definite article "der". Same goes for boy, "der Junge." "The woman" is "die Frau", using the feminine definite article "die". But the same does not go for "the girl" which is "das Mädchen" using the neutral definite article. Turns out that in the old days the common term for "the girl" was "das Ding" - which translates to "the thing"(!!!) - and it appears to be a remnant of that which makes "the girl" use the neutral definite article. "Das Weib" and "das Mänchen" ("The female" and "the male" respectively) are gender neutral.

Language is strange.

[Onderhond]

which translates to "the thing"(!!!)

"She's a pretty little thing" is something you still hear sometimes.

[Armoreska]

Polyamorous characters in film/TV
https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/poly ... armoreska/

[Coryn]

As I was reading the phenomenal book 'The art of B-movie Posters' the author claims Children of Loneliness AKA The Third Sex (1934) is the first movie to touch on the concept of homosexuality. To my surprise it seems nobody has checked the movie yet on ICM.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053353/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/the+third+sex/

[Fergenaprido]

As I was reading the phenomenal book 'The art of B-movie Posters' the author claims Children of Loneliness AKA The Third Sex (1934) is the first movie to touch on the concept of homosexuality. To my surprise it seems nobody has checked the movie yet on ICM.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053353/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/the+third+sex/

Well, the imdb page says the film is presumed lost. But it's definitely not the first move to touch on the concept of homosexuality. That's probably Different from the Others (1919) or maybe I Don't Want to Be a Man (1918).

[Coryn]

As I was reading the phenomenal book 'The art of B-movie Posters' the author claims Children of Loneliness AKA The Third Sex (1934) is the first movie to touch on the concept of homosexuality. To my surprise it seems nobody has checked the movie yet on ICM.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053353/
https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/the+third+sex/

Well, the imdb page says the film is presumed lost. But it's definitely not the first move to touch on the concept of homosexuality. That's probably Different from the Others (1919) or maybe I Don't Want to Be a Man (1918).

I see, now that makes me question all the other stuff written in the book. Before I bring him down im going to te read it though, could be he was talking about transgenders.

[Pretentious Hipster]

Maybe, but I think Different From the Others had a segment on trans people as well. The film had a doctor that was studying homosexuality and was a breakthrough figure of it. Most of his work was lost when the nazis came in and they tried to destroy that film too.

[kongs_speech]

Maybe, but I think Different From the Others had a segment on trans people as well. The film had a doctor that was studying homosexuality and was a breakthrough figure of it. Most of his work was lost when the nazis came in and they tried to destroy that film too.

Damn, I need to see that.

[Armoreska]

https://www.vulture.com/2021/01/philoso ... trans.html

Spoiler

[Armoreska]

How do you feel about IMDb now promoting a new TERF documentary? They went ahead and put a ton of keywords in there so I found it and it's on youtube, with a long runtime and looks very credible.

[xianjiro]

[Armoreska]

this is why we won't have nice things

[Fergenaprido]

What are you referring to Armo?

[xianjiro]

this is why we won't have nice things

sorry, but I gave you my honest response. How is IMDb promoting something just because some diligent user has entered a lot of keywords? Also, since you actually don't point us to the docu in question, how can I comment on it? Would adding a bunch of keywords to an Alex Jones vid qualify as IMDb promoting it?

I've been around too long and saw way too much pain caused by the perceived defection of lesbians identifying as transmen and the perceived blow to feminism that created. However, this is a battle I don't ultimately wish to take sides in since I see value and emotional worth in the concerns of both sides (though I choose to remember to be supportive of all trans people in my own personal actions and goals). But that said, I also continue to be supportive of feminists and their concerns even if I sometimes personally disagree. In some ways, this reminds of how a certain user tried to exploit the divide between Muslim parents and the LGBTQ community in British schools though there is no ulterior agenda that I can see.

As something of a flip of this discussion, I read an article about a private, members only, gay campground that is planned in Michigan. One of the features is that a penis will be required for membership. Of course there is an immediate uproar but when I read the article, I thought, sounds like someone wants to do something like an open air bath house. I'm still a big believer in the freedom of association and as long as LGBTQ organizers, say of a Pride event, aren't meeting at such a location (or at least meeting there while enforcing the 'penis required' rule), then I don't really see this as different from a Baptist only campground or the famed (and maybe now defunt) wimmins' music fest that also banned men (I think they suffered a lot after telling wimmin they couldn't bring their minor sons with them, a move, that while I understood it on some level, I also felt they were missing a great opportunity to create a group of wimmin-positive young men, something our society sorely needs more of). Also, and back to the campground, Michigan also has at least two other TQ friendly campgrounds and I can think of other arguments like the campground isn't tax-funded nor is anyone required to go there.

I really don't wish to get pulled into defending a stance simply because someone throws out a certain label - in this case TERF. I can envision a whole host of things both good and bad, but I would have to delve into the specifics before reaching a decision.

[xianjiro]

from https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... s-n1258627

An estimated 5.6 percent of Americans identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer, according to a new Gallup report. That’s up from 4.5 percent in 2017, the last year polling on the issue was conducted by the organization.

Of those surveyed who identified as LGBTQ, 54.6 percent identified as bisexual, 24.5 percent as gay, 11.7 percent as lesbians, 11.3 percent as transgender and 3.3 percent said they used another term to describe their identity (i.e. queer or same-gender loving). The total exceeds 100 percent because respondents were able to choose more than one category.

The poll aligns with growing support for LGBTQ rights evident in recent Gallup surveys, including a June 2020 poll showing that 67 percent of Americans back gay marriage. In 2012, when Gallup started asking about sexual orientation, only 53 percent believed same-sex couples should be allow to wed.

In all, 3.1 percent of the U.S. population identifies as bisexual, compared to 1.4 percent who say they are gay, 0.7 percent lesbian, 0.6 percent transgender, and 0.2 percent other. Some LGBTQ respondents chose more than one category.

Currently, 86.7 percent of Americans say they are heterosexual or straight, and 7.6 percent did not answer the question about their sexual orientation. Gallup's 2012-2017 data had approximately 5 percent "no opinion" responses.

So, I'm part of the 1.4% - sounds like the start of a movement ...

[prodigalgodson]

So, I'm part of the 1.4% - sounds like the start of a movement ...

lol