These posts deal with an increasingly important question – how and why do these forged identities, designed to box people in, keep appearing?
Demisexuality: Just When You Thought They’d Run Out Of Imagination
May 12, 2016
Always keen to put a new label on perfectly natural aspects of being human, progressives have come up with a term for those who associate sex with an emotional connection, feeling attracted to others only after getting to know them.
It’s almost like arguing that the inclination towards mindless sex is the norm and involving one’s intellect or emotions places a person within a sexual minority. In fact, they seem to be arguing that by always involving the brain it is not pure attraction, but a half-assed one. And yes, I am aware that this theory refers to instincts only and not to any resulting behaviour.
Regardless, placing a watermark on perfectly understandable variations in human instincts is absurd; it is yet another strain of the identity politics fever spreading through the west faster than the plague.
First of all, men and women experience attraction differently, men being more visually-oriented and more quickly aroused. While admitting some people might only experience it at a physical level, attraction generally involves a variety of factors for both sexes, such as the vibe a person emits, which is directly linked with their personality. Picturing oneself in a sexual situation naturally entails perceiving the possibility of a connection, of a positive and pleasant interaction. It’s difficult to picture that with someone who is incredibly smug, for instance.
Just as attraction decreases for intellectual or emotional reasons in some people (let’s take the response to a great looking guy with a lovely swastika tattoo), in others it increases as they bond with their friends or partners. There is nothing strange about that. The attempt to quantify something so vague as the way people respond to each other, given the complex nature of every individual’s life, is a pointless one.
Having cleared that aspect, other progressive concepts pop out of the woodwork to confront dissenters, namely the allies of the demisexual community and their activism.
Can someone explain to me why being slightly different than others – again, a very normal expression of diversity to date – requires resources, allies, support and activism? Where exactly is the problem in these individuals’ lives? How are they being oppressed, as to require others to stand up for them in an organised manner?
“Coming out as demisexual” sounds incredibly ridiculous. While coming out as gay or bisexual makes sense before your family sees you kissing Bob instead of Jenny, what in the world is the point of explaining the ins and outs of your arousal to your relatives and friends? Whose business is it except your own how soon into the relationship you get a hard on in your partner’s company? The next thing you know, you’ll feel inclined to describe your favourite positions at the dinner table. You might even feel morally obligated, as to not deprive others of the needful education you can impart, and yourself of the imperious need to express every facet of your personality.
“Children usually figure out who they’re attracted to at an early age, even if they don’t want to act on it just yet, and children as young as 10 may have crushes and experience sexual attraction.If a child is not too young to adopt heterosexual as a label, then they’re not too young to adopt demisexual.” (same source)
Can I just say this is absolutely fucked up? First of all, people don’t adopt heterosexual as a label; most only come across it when finding out about other categories. Secondly, this “demisexual” label would presumably come as a result of someone analysing how they have felt for years; you can’t possibly expect a child to have enough experience to embrace that. The mere fact that attraction involves bonding implies they have had such bonds in the past and have reacted in the same manner; that certainly does not apply to children. In most cases I trust the teenager identifying as such may be a late developer, excessively shy, inhibited by the opposite sex etc. None of that is weird and needs to be permanent.
“Also note that asexuality is recognized as valid in the DSM-V, the latest edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic tool.” (same source)
Recognised as valid in the DSM…? And that’s a good thing? “Valid” is a positive word. “Disorder” isn’t.
Speaking of legitimacy. Apparently, this is how the term was first created. By a member of an asexuality-based forum, in 2006, to be made popular in 2008 by another forum member, both referring to their personal experiences. Ever since, it has apparently remained in the community. Hence there really is no science behind it. None at all.
“Demisexuals are not actively persecuted on the same level as gays and lesbians…”
You cannot talk about the persecution of a group which was recently invented/ perpetuated by lobbyists in need of something to do. There is no such thing as a legitimate group, formed and oppressed based on how soon or they want to have sex with their partners. Who knows or cares about that part of an individual’s life? Even if the label had some real basis, these people would not be publicly identifiable, in order to claim any kind of oppression.
The only way for others to EVER know one identifies as demisexual is for them to advertise it themselves. Again, letting others know about being gay or lesbian has the purpose of being able to display affection in public, possibly get married etc. It is important for others to accept that, in the context of it being in their faces constantly. Whereas the existence and frequency of one’s sex acts will not, therefore making the announcement redundant.
The only certainty is that the trend of creating new labels won’t stop anytime soon, by the looks of it.
It makes sense to continue this post with the rebuttal of a video posted by someone who, without identifying as demisexual, argues for the legitimacy of the term, as well as the unkindness of those who dispute it, out of some presumed reactionary stubbornness.
If I may, I’ll respond to some direct quotes from the video:
What I hear when people talk like this is that they want to limit other people’s ability to communicate (…)
This claim suggests that by disputing it, some want to (or can) actively stop interested parties from using it, discussing it as much as they please among themselves and putting out whatever information they deem correct about it. However, expressing a negative opinion is nowhere near wanting to censor the initial one. The person in question might have said that this terminology should not be officially adopted, akin to the truckloads of other Tumblr-isms. Moreover, it seems it is the creator of the video who wishes to silence skeptics by presenting their skepticism as direct aggression.
What I hear instead is the skewed impression SJWs have regarding their ability to communicate freely. It seems it is common for them to think that when their theories or claims are met with invalidation, they are effectively being silenced. Therefore, the only way for them to serenely carry out their activism is for everyone to agree (or at least not vocally disagree) with their stance.
No matter how little is has anything to do with them, certain types of people see or hear a word they don’t understand, like “demisexual”, immediately squawk about its uselessness and somehow spin over to screaming “you’re not oppressed” and “you think you’re a special snowflake.”
Issuing such an accusation entails understanding, at least partially, what proponents of this label mean by it. One cannot claim the approach comes out of nowhere; equally, one cannot claim, unless they are disingenuous, that there isn’t a full blown epidemic of artificial labels in the name of which youngsters claim to be oppressed beyond their level of endurance. It’s mostly hysterical millennials latching on to these labels, pronouns and demands for special treatment.
When you say demisexual people don’t need a word because they’re not oppressed, you’re suggesting the only reason to name an experience is to claim special rights.
Again, it is disingenuous to argue that there is no precedent motivating that assertion. It’s not just any type of experience, but the claim to have identified yet another sexual orientation, besides those which it actually makes sense to differentiate. With this type of recognition there are logical consequences.
When you’re saying that demisexual people are using a label because they wanna seem special, you’re suggesting that their orientation is about you and about getting attention from you.(…) Very self-centred of you, isn’t it?
I’d love to hear about their need to involve the community at large into their business in the first place, if neither privilege (special rights) seeking nor attention seeking is involved. Their orientation certainly is not about me/ us/ people who do not identify as such; however, the public dialogue involves both sides. And obviously, they initiated this dialogue. There are many groups out there based on a shared trait, which don’t feel the need to “educate” the entire world about their private habits.
So why would you invent a muddy motive to take away the legitimacy of their desire to connect? And if it so eats at your guts that they might get attention for it, why don’t you stop giving it to them?
Why do people bother to engage in such discussions instead of living their lives peacefully? This is frequent SJW rhetoric, which sounds reasonable enough, except it ignores reality and the precedent set many times before.
Live and let live does not work with certain groups which attain minority status on a questionable basis. That’s why they engage in activism in the first place. I’m not saying everyone identifying as one category or another is bent on becoming obnoxious and vindictive – however, we have seen organisations demanding that people or companies be punished for invalidating attitudes. And we have seen them succeed, ruining businesses and careers, or at least making a lot of noise in the media attacking people who were minding their own business. I remember an article about a bank which didn’t feature a special gender option between male and female on the form. As if ticking that box were some kind of life-altering event mattering for more than two seconds.
Even if you ignore the whole conversation, if you don’t get in anybody’s way, sooner or later they are likely to get in your way regardless. That’s how some places ended up with laws imposing draconian fines for “misgendering” a person or generally offending a thin-skinned one. Which is annoying enough when genuine minorities are involved – imagine being persecuted on behalf of an imaginary one.
Here is the definition of sexual orientation; it refers specifically to the sex of the people one is attracted to, not to any side issues such as special circumstances, behaviour, romanticism, attachment etc.
one’s natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality. (source)
Again – why would this group, with the modest expectation of being left alone, need activism and allies? The word “ally” is used to describe a sympathetic person advocating the cause of a certain minority; why would advocacy be needed if there was no intention of going down the same path as other groups have before? Moreover, there is talk of “demisexual pride” and its symbols. Again, this is a comparison to gay pride, which has an aspect of rebellion to it, as gay people did face persecution in the west and still do in other parts of the world, where all these made up orientations are not a thing and probably won’t be anytime soon. As for demisexuality, in the context of no past, present or foreseeable persecution, I don’t see the need for all that.
If it’s normal, it can still have a name to describe that specific experience.
If it’s normal, then it is also very frequent, therefore the discussion will attract many people to the group.This activism entails proselitising to draw in naive, inexperienced teens, Tumblr types, who tend to collect these labels the way my generation collected sports figurines. When their nature will no longer conform to the self-imposed stereotype, they will become confused.
The people adopting this label as a result of proselytism will sabotage themselves by “coming out as demisexuals” to prospective partners. Which is like holding up a sign saying I’m not attracted to you; I might be in a few months or a few years, if I really, really like you.
There’s a big difference between abstinence by choice and telling someone straight out that you’re not attracted to them.Guess how many will stick around, if they’re not part of some weird sect, or “on the spectrum” themselves. Which is only bound to make these people feel marginalised.
I recently saw a video of a young man describing his friend’s “journey” to accepting this label. From what he says, his friend had some degree of frustration regarding the opposite sex; he had trouble dating and finding the right person. As many young people do, he would post about his dissatisfaction on social media, Facebook specifically. Through those posts he was found and targeted by a group of social justice warriors who tried to convince him he was demisexual. At first he rejected the validity of the term and was attacked by them as a bigot, but a few days later he reconsidered and contacted one of them to inquire further. Lo and behold, they managed to convince him that he was indeed demisexual and he shortly “came out” on Facebook, receiving showers of praise and attention from his new progressive group. His friend, who created the video, tried to dissuade him and was swiftly attacked by the group as – you guessed it – a bigot wanting to invalidate the young man’s recently discovered “true” self.
It’s plain to see that this is how cults operate. They seek people with a specific social problem, offer them a new identity within their community as a solution and then try to cut them off from their real life mates and families, who are supposedly trying to invalidate them. Their tactics could not be clearer.
If I find the video again I will edit and post it here.
MAY 13, 2016
That is so astonishingly odd. If I was a conspiracy theorist (I actually am! LOL) I would say there some deep pockets funding this crapola. Real oppression among the younger crowd is limited economic opportunity and ginormous student loans. But somebody somewhere would like the attention deflected away from actual survival issues, onto the inane.
If disparity income could be sexualized, it might get more attention. How about people who can’t get aroused at all because they are tired and overworked? Econo-asexuals??
MAY 22, 2016
It surely looks that way. There must be so many people wondering what the point of their existence is, as they barely scrape by, when paying the bills is some kind of finishing line at the end of each month, and then it starts all over again.
And meanwhile, others fill their void with all these labels, such as those on the “asexuality spectrum”. Every nuance which is either normal or some treatable issue now becomes a label; these groups are churning out so many personality types, based on nothing but vague feelings and habits. It should be suspicious that they’re just making them up and crowds of attention seekers just take them on immediately, like finding a new religion.
And if you question their validity, you are the most immoral and insensitive bigot.
MAY 23, 2016
It’s like Western society has gone completely mad. When feminists find common cause with those who would like to practice Sharia law, you have to shake your head in utter astonishment.
The concept of ‘freedom’ is so fraught with paradox it is easy for those with common sense to become confused by it.
But those without a strong rudder of logic, basic reason, seem to be driven completely mad by it.
MAY 23, 2016
It looks increasingly like some countries re losing their grip on reality. It wasn’t like this 5 year ago, or even 3 years ago. A decade or more ago seems like a past lifetime; things are so different now.
MAY 23, 2016
22 Shades Of Gender Confusion – And Counting
February 3, 2016
It now becomes apparent that the humour employed in this post is derisory and might’ve gone a bit too far. There is no need to be sarcastic regarding someone’s confusion, especially if they appropriate labels established by other people, at a vulnerable age, due to their environment.
The labels themselves, however, warrant more than slight scepticism. It would be interesting to see the science behind them, should there be any, as they attempt to box people in according to a few variations in personality traits.
The list on the survey given to English school kids as young as 13 regarding their gender comprised 25 options; however, the last three were “not sure”, “rather not say” and “others”, the latter being hilarious since the masters of language-twisting have already stretched the limits of their own creativity. Who the hell can come up with others? Unless, of course, non-human or partially human labels are accepted as well.
Pandering to identity politics activism, the educational system is introducing more of it into schools, to further confuse young people, some teenagers doubtlessly being left unable to recognise the world they grew up in as children. Today, nothing seems to make much sense.
Not surprisingly, in order to compile such a long list, they had to use reworded labels and definitions over and over again.
To start with, the list includes the conventional “boy”, “girl”, “male”, “female”, “young man” and “young woman”. The only difference between “boy” and “young man” is coming of age, which has nothing to do with gender. Hence they could have simply used any pair of the three, the other two pairs being superfluous. Instead, they multiplied them and ended up with six different options.
“Trans-girl” and “trans-boy”, fair enough, that does apply to real life, though the age of the label being applied is ridiculously low nowadays and many argue even toddlers are able to make an accurate choice regarding their gender identity (besides choosing to be Batman or Harry Potter). One is referred to as an adult at 18 for specific reasons; minors need legal representatives when making crucial decisions; however, social justice warriors argue young kids are able to give informed consent to be mutilated with gender reassignment operations and put on cancer-inducing hormone “treatments”.
Then there is “tomboy”. That is not a gender. That word has been used for a very long time to describe very active girls who enjoy boys’ hobbies and hang around boys, but that says nothing about one’s main lifestyle choices or gender.
“Gender fluid” is said to describe those who have “different gender identities at different times”. Basically, they are two or more people in one body, presumably choosing a different name for each one, perhaps different clothes and voices. This sounds a bit like multiple personality disorder, with the difference that the person is aware of switching between identities. I’m assuming it doesn’t refer to those who pretend to be of their natural gender in order to avoid stigma, and present as their chosen gender on occasion. This is about people who genuinely feel they have two different identities; one male and one female. Or another couple selected from this list… or more, who knows. We are legion. Let’s just hope no young man chooses to incorporate – as his female side – the identity of his dead mother, who lies mummified in a basement.
“Agender” – “those with no gender identity or a neutral identity”. This term was invented on planet Earth, yet does not apply to it. You can talk about asexuality, which refers to the lack of sexual attraction towards one sex or another, or the lack of sex drive. But every single child is brought up as a boy or girl and thus develops a gender identity, adding to the hormonal predispositions they are born with. I’ve heard of people switching from male to female and vice-versa, but never of having / believing to have/ wishing to have no gender at all. Though the current experimental generation being brought up in Sweden might one day include many of these uprooted, confused people.
“Androgynous – partly male and female; of indeterminate sex”. So I assume androgynous people are androgynous at all times, unlike the gender fluid, who contain multitudes. Let’s look on the bright side – if at some point they deliberately try to confuse others through their appearance, at least they won’t go the way of suing people for misgendering them.
“Bi-gender – those who experience two gender identities, either at the same time or varying between the two.” If it happens at the same time, one is androgynous, right? And if it varies, one is gender fluid. So there was no need to add “bi-gender” at all.
From here on, everything apart from intersex is repeated and reworded, with nothing truly distinct being added.
“Non-binary” – basically androgynous.
“Demi-boy and demi-girl” – basically androgynous.
“Genderqueer – those who do not subscribe to traditional gender distinctions” – so basically androgynous or agender, if there really is such a thing.
“Gender non-conforming” – the exact same thing with a different name.
“Tri-gender – shifts between three genders, which could include male, female and gender-less or be another combination”. So basically gender fluid.
“All genders – someone who identifies as all possible gender options”. A label which teaches us that either gender doesn’t really exist or this person has so many identities they are worth studying. Anyway, gender fluid would cover this one as well.
“In the middle of boy and girl” – how many more categories based on androgyny can they make up?
“Intersex – someone with genetic, hormonal and physical features that may be thought typical of both male and female”. That is a genuine distinction for once, though chances are people born intersex eventually choose which gender suits them better.
OK. Now that we’re done with genders.
If we think that any gender could be of any sexual orientation as well, things really get complicated.
Forget being attracted to both sexes as a tricky situation – imagine what happens if you have multiple identities and each of them has their own sexual preference or preferences. What if you’re biologically female, gender fluid, sometimes feeling female and sometimes male, and you’re attracted to men? Does that make you a straight woman or a gay man, or both? Is your partner considered bisexual by default, as you alternate between identities?
And if you’re androgynous, how can you tell if you’re gay or straight? Very confusing indeed.
Not to worry though, confusion isn’t all bad, at least that’s what “genderfuckers” think. No, honestly, that’s a word; it describes those who include traits belonging to both sexes in their appearance, for the fun of it, such as bearded men in skirts or high heels. It’s a thing now. Apparently.
After more pondering on this complicated issue, there are even more questions to ask regarding the implications of generally accepting the fact that people can have two or more genders simultaneously.
Is every gender one is thought to have associated with a distinct identity?
When one thinks of themselves as interchangeably male and female, it makes sense to appear as such in order to make the change recognisable by others (to be treated as their chosen gender at the time of their choice). That would mean alternating between a male and female appearance, a male and a female name and potentially other characteristics as well. It doesn’t make sense to be Miss John or Mr Lilly. And sure enough, a simple search on “gender fluid” reveals people who do dress differently and adopt different names.
If so, how often are these identities interchangeable?
Some suggest a choice is made each day according to how male or female or agender that person feels that morning. It makes sense (to the extent any of this can make sense) for the choice/ identity to last as long as the appearance does.
I don’t suppose switching every five minutes is likely; I can just picture a dialogue:
“Do you really think that about me?”
“No, that was Dan.”
“So you’re… Dana now?”
“No, Dana doesn’t think that way either. Only Dan.”
“So you’re not Dana either? Like, right now, who are you?”
“I just realised I had a completely different side as well; genderqueer; I think I’ll name them Dingo.”
“So… that would make you genderqueer as well? You as in your… source… identity?”
“No, silly; I’m trigender. Only Dingo is genderqueer.”
“Trigender? Kind of like the Holy Trinity, three different entities who are simultaneously one being? Is that applicable to humans?”
I’m quite confident it wouldn’t work that way (and sorry if that sounds very insensitive).
What legal implications are there to identifying as more than one person?
Even if one’s personality remains the same all throughout, with opinions and attitudes being consistent, which is less confusing than having different personalities as well.
Purely for administrative purposes – how would having two or more identities work in terms of getting a job and on occasion turning up as somebody else? Which identity is legally responsible and would this person sign with a different name according to how they felt that day? Does anyone else see how that would be a problem?
“About that raise you mentioned, Dana…”
“Ask Dan. He’s got to sign for it. He’s not in right now and I can’t forge his signature. That wouldn’t be right; I would be breaching my own rights.”
“Uh… When is he…due back?”
“When I feel more male.”
“Can you.. like… give him a call, at least? How do you contact him? Is he… in there? Of sort? Do you have to conjure him up? Because right now it feels like you’re just being a bitch not wanting to give me a raise.”
Surely nothing this ridiculous would happen – however, though it’s hard to imagine outside of creating humour, if the law protects someone’s right to emulate the Holy Trinity if they so wish, who’s to say that employers won’t be forced to do so as well? That would be a first in granting someone the privilege to sign using two or three different names, which would be illegal for the rest of us.
Is gender really just a state of mind?
My question is simple (and logical I dare think) : if biologically, gender-specific traits are determined by hormones (testosterone for men and estrogen for women), how can anyone be SURE they identify as the opposite sex, without having had a genuine experience of what that is?
Intersex people are actually born with male and female characteristics, at a physical level, which gives them a combined experience, therefore they are unique in that sense. However, most people are not.Chemistry is a real issue here; hormones play a significant role in the perceptions and behaviour of a human being.
Perhaps men who think they are partially female identify with their image of women, without knowing exactly how women feel, and vice-versa, because that would be impossible.When somebody says “today I feel more male”, what they must mean is “today I feel like displaying characteristics I interpret as being male”.
The intention behind my post is not to pointlessly cause offence but to doubt the rationale behind this very popular tendency of fragmenting people’s identities.