Err, what?

welfare services, campaigns and socials to anyone who identifies as being under the LGBTQ+ umbrella, including but not limited to: those under the trans umbrella, genderqueer, genderfluid, genderflux, agender, pangender, bigender, intergender, non-binary, third-gender, and gender questioning or non-conforming individuals, intersex individuals, lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, asexual, grey-asexual, demisexual, homoromantic, panromantic, biromantic, aromantic and polyamorous individuals

I had to look some of these up. The distinction between pan and poly seems rather fine for example. The former seemingly being “A shag, anyone for a shag?” while the second is “A shag, anyone….but no not you….for a shag?”

Grey asexual is not very interested (aka wife) apparently.

27 thoughts on “Err, what?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    It seems that sex has moved from something people do to something that defines who people are. Mentally ill attention seekers, by and large, it would seem.

    With the best intentions in the world, do you think they would take it amiss if I suggested they got off their ar$es and actually went out there to find someone willing to shag them on a regular basis, and stopped obsessing about what it means to do what they would like to do, if only they had any friends to do it with?

  2. SMFS: “It seems that sex has moved from something people do to something that defines who people are. “

    Bang (if you’ll pardon the pun) on the money.

  3. I look forward to a reactionary swing to the all-inclusive “private life”. This lot scare more than the horses and unless one is on the prowl for sex, the annoying fine distinctions should not make any difference.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Mattw – “Not dicks or chicks, but seriously into Bics.”

    Ouch. That’s got to hurt.

    Mattw – “Musicians who make love in 1/16 of a beat will feel left out.”

    Although not as much as their wives and girlfriends. I am told thinking about baseball can help with that.

  5. “I look forward to a reactionary swing to the all-inclusive “private life”.”

    I think that’s the idea. Someone got a good thing going for themselves with their new variant on the victimhood poker game, so everyone else is getting in on the act, inventing their own variants where whatever they’ve got is top trumps. Competition destroys monopolies, and eventually the game will collapse under the weight of its own ridiculosity. (You guys need to start a campaign to get squirrel suits in there… Join in the fun!)

    “the annoying fine distinctions should not make any difference.”

    They don’t. That’s the point. “Are you a boy or a girl?” “Who cares? Such fine distinctions don’t matter.”

    Satire isn’t dead yet. It’s still working to change society.

  6. I notice they don’t mention polygamous. The four-wife tribe doesn’t look favourably on the LGBTQWERTY types.

    Other than that it’s just standard student union politics. If they missed out some category, a splinter group would form (c.f. People’s Front of Judea) and that would never do.

  7. I failed to notice the “Big Bang” when the amorphous body of odd people exploded into today’s alphabet soup of deviance.

  8. Rob: The ultimate aim is to have one gender type per individual.

    Good. Mine’s in my handle.

  9. SMFS
    I used to think about VAT returns.

    I read it as a reference to the William Gibson character, Hubertus Bigend.

  10. You guys need to start a campaign to get squirrel suits in there… Join in the fun!

    Already done. They are “other kin” (although strictly those are the ones who sexually identify as squirrels. Sexually identifying as a human and preferring to make love in a squirrel suit is the sex wing of “furries”.)

  11. Lol, this includes some straight snowflakes too, like hetero-romantic asexuals and the fiction that is demisexual.

    Demisexuals – those who claim only being sexually aroused by someone they know very well is its own orientation are straight suburb kids who want in on the minority victim points. Despite that alleged ‘orientation’ being about as heteronormative as you can get. How many straight laced religious conservatives would approve of only lusting after your life partner and not random people?

  12. Tim, are you on a mission from Murdoch to get us all to go out and buy his publications or subscribe to his websites? You do link to the Times and the ST an awful lot. Not all of us has the cash to splash on such fripperies.

  13. Bloke in Costa Rica

    It’s all so fucking adolescent. Yet more evidence of retarded maturity in our terribly decadent world. I guess having enough surplus wealth and free time to worry about this shit beats subsistence farming and dying of rickets, although by how much I am not sure.

  14. why does such a small number of people get such attention?
    and why have they power?

    Remember ‘ the greatest good of the greatest number’?

  15. “When you put it like this, cis and non-cis seem like quite sensible terms.”

    When people are not playing ‘victimhood top trumps’ with it, it does actually serve a sensible purpose – the same one any technical jargon does. The problem is that the familiar terms everyone knows don’t fit a lot of people (nature is a spectrum – it’s a limitation of evolved brains that they try to fit everything into rigid categories) so they’re always making false assumptions about what they are or do.

    It’s like outsiders assuming that all conservatives are like David Cameron. Insiders schism into many sub-categories: crunchy conservatives, cultural conservatives, fiscal conservative, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, social conservatives, europhile conservatives, eurosceptic conservatives, free market conservatives, tariff-and-subsidy conservatives, masonic-handshake-and-one-trouser-leg conservatives, women’s institute blue-rinse conservatives, and so on. Outsiders regard all the hair-splitting about subtle distinctions of policy to be ridiculous, and the way they fight like ferrets in a sack funny. But every sub-culture does it.

    You should only really need to use the technical vocabulary when checking compatibility with someone you’re interested in (or purely out of interest/curiosity). For most purposes, saying “LGBT” is sufficient.

    “why does such a small number of people get such attention?”

    Because it’s excellent click bait.

    Why did *you* pay them any attention? That’s why.

  16. It’s worse than an American style commercial contract.

    Can’t they just say “people who don’t typically identify as heterosexual” and that should cover pretty much everyone without having to take a degree in Queer studies to work out what they’re talking about

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *