boots said:
You probably shouldn't use the term "straw-man argument" if you don't know what it means (see also: 'arbitrary')
A straw-man argument is where one misrepresents their opponent's argument so that it is easier for one to refute. i.e. what you've been doing demanding that I am saying we shouldn't have names for things, when I was not saying that at all.
Secondly, "sociologists" (I don't know why you're picking on the sociologists, but I'll assume you're using them as a euphemism for "people who give names to stuff") don't make up definitions and then force people to fit into them.
I did not say that they did, nor was I picking on them. Jesus Christ your abilities at comprehension are astoundingly low.
It is sociologists and psychologists that invent terms for things such as sexuality, likely for the purposes of analysis of averages amongst populations etc.
They give names to traits that already exist. That's all that terms for sexual orientation are: they are words with definitions.
No, the terms are approximations. That's how it is with most definitions: An approximation of the reality. Only the philosophically naive would think that pre-decided definitions of words wholly, accurately represented reality. This is not the case at all. Go and look into model-dependent realism.
They're not going to jump up and attack you or carry anyone off and stuff them into a cage.
I didn't claim that's what would happen. Why do you feel you have to misrepresent what I say in my posts?
When people don't fit a definition exactly the solution is not to panic and scrap the definition entirely so that it can never be used again.
Again, I have not said that is the "solution." There is not a solution. We have to accept that any definition we have is just an approximation.
All it means is that you have to come up with a better word to describe the people who don't fit, which is more or less what happened with bisexuality and pansexuality.
Like I said before, such terms are only useful when sociologist talk about averages, statistics and studies. There's really no need to apply them with personal social interactions with people. It doesn't change anything about the person how you label them. What has been changed by doing this?
Top tip: you probably shouldn't vehemently deny that you said something, and then immediately go on to say it again...Now, in the very next sentence you immediately go on to argue that recognising people's differences impinges on our ability to recognise their similarities. You see how that's a little confusing?
No, I was referring to a historical fact that humans typically fight over differences. This does not mean that recognising differences impinges on one's ability to recognise similarities. Nor do I actually say this. You either have very poor ability at comprehending things you have just read or are trying to once again misrepresent what I said.
It's always division and difference that makes people conflict with one another.
OK, let's try and break down this ludicrously oversized generalisation logically. I can't quite wrap my brain around the fact that you seriously think that any recognition of difference between people is going to create conflict.[/quote]
No, I was pointing out that people typically fight over differences. This is a fact of human history. I am not saying that recognising differences creates conflict. I am saying that people fight over differences.
What does having definitions for sexual and gender orientation achieve? How about letting LGBT people know that their experience is normal and shared by other people.
Why does it need a label to be understood as normal? No one needed to define "heterosexual" for me before I could get past any cognitive dissonance. In fact, I have no cognitive dissonance over what/who I am. It's only because society has made these things taboo that anyone would need reassuring.
Imagine if you were transgendered but had absolutely no knowledge of the word and were trying to come to terms with the fact that...
Interesting choice of words. It's sad that it has to be described as "coming to terms" as though it's not something you would accept right from the start. I don't think most heterosexuals, for example, have to "come to terms" with their sexual orientation. Why? Because it's understood by society as "normal" and O.K. It's a shame it's not like this with these other things. Again, we can thank society for making it taboo not to be "normal." If that changes maybe we can drop the plethora of terms for these things outside of an academic context.
The argument that you're making is that we shouldn't have as many terms for different sexual orientation as we do, but if you take them away it actually makes it much harder to treat people individually.
I get treated like an individual and no one has to keep reminding me of the exact word for my sexual orientation. Why? Oh yeah, society and it's taboos. Again.
I didn't say that's what a resolution was. I was merely attacking your stupid fucking, inflammatory rhetoric.
Cool it, sparky, there's no need to get all riled up. It's just a conversation on the internet.
What you can get passionate about this and I can't?
