People objected to the word I used for non queer people, so I asked for alternatives that people would prefer.
So it is directly related to the topic and the linked article, but only from the standpoint of in vs out group.
It's not that I care what you (or anyone else) calls themselves. Whatever you (or anyone else, for that matter) choose is just fine with me (not that I have any say in the matter, just clarifying my point of view).
As I said, I don't speak for anyone else, so others ("people," as you put it) may well have objected.
I object not to the terms themselves, nor to others who choose to use those terms for themselves. Rather, I object to those terms being applied to me, and even more, that it be demanded that I use those terms to describe myself in this context.
You specifically asked (as I quoted, so it would clear, but I guess not) "maybe you feel better described by "gender or sexual majority"?"
And I explained that such labels/terms aren't relevant in this context, and that I find your focus on those labels/terms in this context to be irrelevant and your continued demands for folks to participate in your verbal strip tease (i.e., acquiescing to being outed -- which is what you were doing), when someone's gender identity and/or sexuality is irrelevant to the discussion.
IMHO, it was an offensive and obnoxious thing for you to do.
If you're still not clear, I'd be happy to explain (again) why invading the privacy of others (in a public forum, no less!) is objectionable.
Not you, specifically, but the aggregate group who are not lgbtq+?
On a personal level, this reminds me of my own struggle to identify with the term "agender". At best, it's not incorrect. But it describes an aspect of myself that feels irrelevant to whatever context it's brought up in, almost to the point of being a category error. I am currently wearing a black shirt. Does this make me a black-shirt-wearer? Well, yes, but this tells you nothing about who I am. Better to describe me on a relevant axis: I am an engineer. I try very hard to be kind to everybody no matter what I think of them. I am an optimist. I enjoy sour beers. All of these are more relevant than asking what gender I identify with, because the fact of the matter is, I don't.
Extrapolate that to the disagreement between you and nobody9999 if you find it useful; I may have misunderstood the debate or nobody9999's point entirely and make no claim to represent their views.
I'm not interested in asking nobody9999 to share any details about their own identity, just asking them how they'd label that section of the Venn diagram.
No. You clearly don't.
I said:
It's not that I care what you (or anyone else) calls themselves. Whatever you
(or anyone else, for that matter) choose is just fine with me (not that I
have any say in the matter, just clarifying my point of view).
As I said, I don't speak for anyone else, so others ("people," as you put it)
may well have objected.
I object not to the terms themselves, nor to others who choose to use those
terms for themselves. Rather, I object to those terms being applied to me,
and even more, that it be demanded that I use those terms to describe myself
in this context.
Your own identity is not necessary not germane to this. I had used the term cishet, without any judgement intended, and some objected to that.
A Venn diagram exists, people told me not to label one section cishet, and I'm asking "if not that, what label should I use instead?"
The set exists. How do we describe that set?
It's like saying, what type of Christian are you: practising or non-practising? A question that disregards the fact that many people don't consider that religion to be an accurate model of the world in the first place.
The correct analogy would be, "I'm a practicing Christian, but you don't call yourself that. What would you call the group that doesn't call themselves practicing Christians?"
I'm not asking "are you a twink or a bear" I'm asking if you belong to a group that doesn't identify as homosexual. If you think homosexuality is evil, you probably can still acknowledge that some people do identify themselves as homosexual.
Your point only exists for an extremely narrow group of people who deny that people identify as trans or homosexual. And for those folks, I'd probably have a separate conversation about, "you might consider it amoral, but you know there are people who call themselves gay, right?"
What do I call people? Steve or Helene or Bobby or Samuel.
Because they are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.
Fuck off asshole.