It's lumped in because it involves the same set of social rules revolving around gender identity. "You're a boy so you should want to fvck girls. You're a girl, so you shouldn't want to play with trucks." And it is met with the a similar level of ignorance and intolerance.

Not being involved myself, I can't claim to know all of the nuances, but from an external viewpoint, the difference between trans and gay doesn't seem to be a much bigger gulf than the difference between bi and gay. Especially when framed in the political terms that the "LGBT" community has been lumped together to tackle. It all boils down to, "I may have been born with X or Y equipment, but that doesn't mean I should be required to be like everyone else born with X or Y equipment just because that's how society's always been." The particulars of HOW you don't fit into the societal gender roles aren't the issue.

Wow, I never considered it that way. Thanks for the insightful angle.

D'oh! And I once had to beg for an explanation of VAM as well. I'm just no good at this!

Um, props for an interesting conversation, everyone. (Nothing but sympathetic interest to add myself.)

VGDM An excellent explanation!

Which brings up the question is visible flippyshark mojo VfsM or VfM?
:)

I struggled with that same question, but decided on "VfsM" in another thread a few minutes ago. It seemed to indicate more clearly whom I was visibly mojoing.





(And not that I ever get any, but the proper form for mojoing yours truly would likely be "ViSmM" rather than "ViM")

GD's "boil down" is somewhat overstated because not everyone gets invited to the parade, no matter how much their atypical condition may be said to be in-born: pederasts, sexual predators, bestialitizers and lovers of German amusement park rides. As to the first two, we can exclude them because there is the issue of victimization. The last two are excluded because they transcend certain taboos or are just too weird. Still, "dog f*ckers-out; dick-loppers-in" is somewhat arbitrary.

2 things. 1) You've made the logical error that me saying, "All of the things that belong to this group have Z in common" means, "All things that have Z in common belong to this group." 2) Your examples don't involve (at least not in as direct a manner) issues pertaining to gender and gender roles. Sexuality, yes, but not gender.

Yeah, see, I never saw homosexuality as a gender role issue, and still don't. So from my perspective, LGB+T remains an error.

But from other people's perspectives, it was eye-opening to consider that others might look at homosexuality as a gender role identity issue. Interesting.

I don't think I'm saying all men are Socrates.

At any rate, I do see homosexuality as a gender issue, or, at least, the reaction against it. The question is, "How should a man behave?" One answer, to many, is, he should be dominate but not be dominated, i.e., he should not be FUTB. He should also seek appropriate objects of conquest, that would exclude children and animals. Some might also say that another thing a man shouldn't do is cut his dick off. So, I think the various practitioners all belong to the same group, or at least their proclivities involve the same considerations. The embrace of some to the exclusion of others is somewhat arbitrary, although undoubtedly politically wise.