i get what you’re trying to say, but maybe the poster was trying to be inclusive. being attracted to feminine people regardless of genitalia is not what most bigots would consider normal. my answer to the question “is it normal to be attracted to x” is “yes”, provided that x is a human person old enough to consent. in my opinion, it is also normal to not be attracted to anything. i am using normal in the value-judgement sense, not in the statistical sense.
Sure, if that’s you’re response to that exact question then yeah. But lets be honest here. Sub 10% of the population is identifies as anywhere on the LGBTQ spectrum (more or less). It’s pretty safe to say that if 90% of anything is ___ that’s the normal thing. I don’t understand why so many people are afraid of being labeled abnormal. Abnormal =/= morally wrong or anything.
But the reason it’s an issue for many is that people don’t really say “normal” to refer to things like sexuality, gender, etc. in a “statistically most likely” way, they use it specifically to exclude the other group from being considered normal as something lesser. Or, to put it another way…
Let’s be honest here. a high percentage of the time that someone categorizes something (implicitly or explicitly) as “abnormal” it is done with intent to label the subject as something undesirable. It’s pretty safe to say that if a term is very often used in a negative way in a specific context, then we can reasonably assume that default definition when that’s the context we’re in. I don’t understand why people are so often afraid to acknowledge that we don’t live in a world of pure definitions, and rather must exist in a situation where the context of a statement is relevant.
This reminds me of that Tumblr post about how the left is so focused on “never being wrong” and how the in-fighting about the most irrelevant shit holds us back
They probably mean it more in the sense of common, regular, standard or majority. If I say I’m a normal bloke happy with my gender, I’m not trying to shit on trans people, I’m just talking about myself.
Normal.
Fuck that, that’s implying any other orientation is abnormal. People should have the right words to describe their sexuality.
Thanks for downvote, but your response is still somewhere between unhelpful and a dog whistle.
i get what you’re trying to say, but maybe the poster was trying to be inclusive. being attracted to feminine people regardless of genitalia is not what most bigots would consider normal. my answer to the question “is it normal to be attracted to x” is “yes”, provided that x is a human person old enough to consent. in my opinion, it is also normal to not be attracted to anything. i am using normal in the value-judgement sense, not in the statistical sense.
Is there a secret, hidden insult in that comment that only you can see? Is it in the room with us right now?
What’s the odds Bob’s a bigot? Someone asked how to describe their sexuality, “normal” is not a useful answer.
It’s not a bigoted one either.
“I like feminine people of all genders, what is that?”
“Normal.”
We don’t know OPs gender, but it doesn’t matter. All sexualities are normal.
Sure, if that’s you’re response to that exact question then yeah. But lets be honest here. Sub 10% of the population is identifies as anywhere on the LGBTQ spectrum (more or less). It’s pretty safe to say that if 90% of anything is ___ that’s the normal thing. I don’t understand why so many people are afraid of being labeled abnormal. Abnormal =/= morally wrong or anything.
While it’s <10% across the entire population, LGBTQ identification rates are at 23% for GenZ. https://news.gallup.com/poll/656708/lgbtq-identification-rises.aspx
But the reason it’s an issue for many is that people don’t really say “normal” to refer to things like sexuality, gender, etc. in a “statistically most likely” way, they use it specifically to exclude the other group from being considered normal as something lesser. Or, to put it another way…
Let’s be honest here. a high percentage of the time that someone categorizes something (implicitly or explicitly) as “abnormal” it is done with intent to label the subject as something undesirable. It’s pretty safe to say that if a term is very often used in a negative way in a specific context, then we can reasonably assume that default definition when that’s the context we’re in. I don’t understand why people are so often afraid to acknowledge that we don’t live in a world of pure definitions, and rather must exist in a situation where the context of a statement is relevant.
I believe it implies that being attracted to masculine people is abnormal. This isn’t an insult, but is sexist.
It…really doesn’t. OP’s gender isn’t mentioned, either.
This reminds me of that Tumblr post about how the left is so focused on “never being wrong” and how the in-fighting about the most irrelevant shit holds us back
Are you implying that something else would be abnormal?
They probably mean it more in the sense of common, regular, standard or majority. If I say I’m a normal bloke happy with my gender, I’m not trying to shit on trans people, I’m just talking about myself.
Nope.
Then use a different word
No