Inkbunny

I don't think it is something to be ashamed of, but not something to be proud of either. Autism can totally be an infirmity or have you never seen the kid's banging their heads into walls or the non-functional ones.

I'm waiting for blonde haired pride day.

Abstrakt

2 years, 10 months ago

link

I have, I was an outpatient a few times
I had thought that was a reaction to medical drug mix- up

Abstrakt

2 years, 10 months ago

link

I just learned something new

Abstrakt

2 years, 10 months ago

link

Also sorry if t.m.i

Yiffox

2 years, 10 months ago

link

Oh Hugs! from a distance

Abstrakt

2 years, 10 months ago

link

Edited 2 years, 10 months ago by Owner

don't worry
I'm not contagious & neither is Autism

*Hugs*

Yiffox

2 years, 10 months ago

link

more covid thing than autism, heh

GayMunk2

2 years, 10 months ago

link

The thing about Autism...is it usually comes with big advantages, such as better at math, or engineering or something like that (which is why Aspergers is call the Engineer's Disorder) but it usually also comes with crippling side effects. It's my belief that Autism is like the next evolutionary step...just without the bugs worked out. The majority of autistic people are pretty well functional, but we have our one particular thing...dont like to be touched, or don't like yellow food, a bad stutter.

Yiffox

2 years, 10 months ago

link

@ GayMunk2

evolution is not a progressive thing, its usually regressive as genetic information is lost. It's why parasites tend to lose a lot of previous functionality in functions/tissues and organs they no longer use over time. Same thing with cave critters losing use of their eyes. (But some of these could also be morphologic rather than genetic changes (tissues don't develop correctly because they are not used - like people with low exposure to UV light to their eyes (being outside) tend to develop farsightedness.) Also, autism has only 30-40% with genetic factors as a cause.

Streifirabbit

2 years, 10 months ago

link

I don't get "pride" movements either. A friend who is gay mentioned, to him they seem important to raise awareness, since gay people still aren't entirely accepted by society in all parts of the world. I agree with him on that, but then, why not have an awareness movement then? Because awareness when addressing social issues seems to make sense. Pride? Not that much.

Pride makes sense, when it is about achievements and yes, the LGBT+ community can be proud on what they have achieved. Yet, a pride movement makes as much sense as a pride movement for multicellular lifeforms. Yeah, when compared to single celled lifeforms they are a rarity, but nobody choses this, as well as nobody choses to be bi or gay or transgender, or whatever else.

People don't just wake up deciding "Today I feel I should belong to an oppressed group and be proud and about to belong to this group despite the fact I feel it is oppressed." That's not how it works.

People are what they are, usually by random chance. Random chance is no reason for pride, as pride is also not the opposite of oppression, but of being ashamed. Nobody needs to be ashamed about who they are, also nobody needs to be proud about it. The whole idea is to be the "new normal" together, not to be "special" and to receive special treatment, because one is exceptionally non-normal.

GayMunk2

also pointed this concept out, feeling "proud" for being "unique" and not "average", while the whole movement is meant to redefine "average" and not to stand out at all. Therefore I think the whole mentality got a bit out of hand, as people seem to associate the opposite with it, what its original goal was. The world doesn't need more and more special snowflakes who want to remain something special, the world needs unity and equality for people with whatever their circumstances in life are.

So, pride movements make little sense to me, awareness movements however make much sense to me. I still support pride movements, by focussing on the awareness part and by ignoring the "Look at me, I'm special!" part.

Oh, and I'm bi myself, before anybody wonders if I should voice my opinion at all because due to maybe not even being associated with this topic.

Yiffox

2 years, 10 months ago

link

Well, as I said just above you, I don't think LGB based on attraction should be grouped with QT+ which is about gender.  What's worse are the two groups have opposing goals often, particular them and lesbians.

I also don't believe anyone is born into any of those groups.  For LGB people, I believe it's an acquired taste which can change over time, which I've seen anecdotally and it used to be established science under Kinsey.  *I* find it odd that a large portion of gay people had their first sexual encounter with another male, either by being molested or fooling around with a friend.  All those in those situations don't become gay, but a good portion of gay people have that origin.  My own theory is the first person you have sex with or fantasize about becomes your "type" to a heavy degree.  The born that way thing was a political statement to make them a group that had no choice.

For QT+, it seems to develop either at a young age or as adolescent, to win approval of an adult or to explain apartness among autistic females especially.  Most people revert back to birth sex unless they continue to receive positive reinforcement.  As I said, 98% cure rate for boys and 80% for girls among 800 patients by psychological counseling between 1970 and 2000 when activist shut it down.

Streifirabbit

2 years, 10 months ago

link

Yeah, I feel orientations and identities should be separate topics as well.

When it comes to "being born" like that, yeah, it's debatable. A gay friend believes this is the case. But there isn't a "gay gene". What I think however is, that people are born with a general inclination towards certain topics. A person with an inclination to feel close to their own gender might be more likely to become gay (and not feel guilty about it) than a person with less of this inclination. Also people might be born with the inclination to become intimate with both genders, who might end up becoming bi. I still think there are also social factors that create a particular orientation, but then again, it's probably based so much on outside factors, that it can't ever be called a "choice".

Personally, I felt pretty gay for many years of my life, almost exclusively looking for male partners. Now I feel I'm fine with either gender, as personality is more important for me than what they have between their legs. So, I kinda "changed", then again, I was probably always fine with female partners as well, but just had strong preferences, that changed over time, but not by choice but by circumstance.

So yeah, I wouldn't exactly buy into the "born that way" argument either, but it can hardly be called a "choice", when it's influenced by many outside factors beyond anybodies control, like for example role models in childhood and influence people had on a developing personality. They are, what they are and aren't really a choice either.

But in the end, this is also why "pride" doesn't make sense to me. You COULD be proud of a choice. But as it isn't one, you couldn't possibly be proud about it. It's circumstance. You can't be proud about circumstance. Well, I guess some people try to be it anyway, but that's what is illogical to me.

Yiffox

2 years, 10 months ago

link

Well you are wrong. Absolutely totally wrong.

Explain how certain whole cultures were "born that way in past." Namely, militaristic societies that found it good to culture a gay defend your buddy ideal like Sparta or Samurai? So were those military "born that way?" Were greek society born into pedophiliac apprentice system?

Streifirabbit

2 years, 10 months ago

link

I think you misunderstood me. I said a friend of mine holds the belief that you are either born gay or not, I myself doubt it. I said I think you the potential for an affinity is more likely to occur in birth, than the affinity itself. Of course this doesn't have to be true, it's just my own 2 cents on it, without having a background in biology. This doesn't make an orientation a choice, though.

Yiffox

2 years, 10 months ago

link

I said it was an acquired taste. There is some choice there though.whether to indulge. You ever had food you liked and (born that way to like it) but didn't eat it for a couple years and then try it again and like UGH....Most recently with me, McNuggets. Also most sodas. I get tea or rootbeer now. Used to drink a 2L of mountain of dew a day. Now its odd tasting.

Had man gay friends who WAT sired children and these were the flamiest gay friends I knew.

Streifirabbit

2 years, 10 months ago

link

I'm not sure, if the sense of taste can easily be applied here. However you might get preferences or a potential of preferences out of genetics. If we have to compare food items, think about milk based products. Everybody is able to drink and digest milk as an infant. But as the body changes over time, not everybody likes milk in their later life, many people end up being lactose intolerant even, which certainly seems to be a genetic thing, as it happens in some ethnicities more often than in others. It's not much of a choice, but rather a circumstance that dictates the liking or disliking of milk based products. It only become a choice if not lactose intolerant people refuse to consume dairy products or if lactose intolerant people risk digestive troubles by still indulding in dairy products.

The acceptance of or willingness to accept ones own sexuality might be the genetic part in my example. The sexual orientation, as I agreed with you, might be based not on genetics, however it might be based on other outside factors that influence the psychology of a growing child. As influences can be subtle, they can't always easily be avoided. And with no knowledge about those factors influencing oneself, those influences might shape specific orientations. If they can't be experienced consciously, as is the case with most influences in life, and they can't be willingly avoided nor embraced, they turn to circumstance and those can't be called a choice, as the individual has no control over outside influences.

Choice only applies if someone consciously decides to act upon those orientations. Personally I don't see any reason why somebody shouldn't induldge in their orientation, as long as nobody gets hurt in the process and everybody consents, though. Everything else shouldn't really matter.

Yiffox

2 years, 10 months ago

link

I don't believe anyone is really born with inherited tastes.  They seem to have much more to do with what one is exposed to as a child and the culture that surrounds it.  Genetic based tastes are pretty rare.  African Americans also have lactose intolerance around 80% but still consume a lot of milk and cheese.  My roommate finds many of my childhood foods disgusting such as scrapple and corn mush.  I developed a dislike of many foods as a child such as tomatoes and onions.  I've gotten over some of these, as tastes change.  I'll eat fried cabbage, but not boiled.  I LOVE brussel sprouts fried in garlic and olive oil, but not boiled.  As a kid, I was served the boiled kind of each.  I learned to like small portions of broccoli.

I find a lot of his childhood foods gross as well.  Mac and Cheese with hot dogs in it for example, but my dad when it was his turn to cook on sunday afternoons would make cut up hot dogs and scrambled eggs that he learned in army, which I still love.

I don't think there is much of a genetic component to sexuality because is entirely a learned behavior.  No kid knows what sex is, and will generally find it gross if described.  It's a running joke in movies of people trying to kiss for the first time.  My 10 year old nephew thought sex was kissing, as his parents went in bedroom for some private time when I was watching him and he told me in a whisper that's what they were doing.  This further makes sense by cultural attitudes toward homosexuality.  Militaristic societies that separate men from women for training tend toward homosexuality.  Does one's genetics turn one gay upon a long sentence in prison?

GayMunk2

2 years, 10 months ago

link

Edited 2 years, 10 months ago by Owner

Note: I'm pretty sure the whole gay pride thing came about from pride in being open about who you were in the days when it could get you killed (well, the days when that happened moreso than now). "You can't be proud of circumstance" I don't know why not. Same way you can be proud of your ancestry. But gay pride is supposed to be more of a pride in having come out under difficult situations, and having pride of the courage it took. Coming out to an unaccepting family for instance, or just proud of the decision to live how you wish and not hide it anymore. (Note, that's NOT the same thing as throwing being gay in everyone's faces in obnoxious ways). Do I fly a rainbow flag? Yup and I like that. Is everything I own rainbow? Hell no. I drive past businesses with that stupid new flag where they brought race into it and I won't patron that business for supporting such foolishness. I support only LGBQ. I say Q because it stands for Queer which doesn't have anything to do with the + bs

Yiffox

2 years, 10 months ago

link

@ GayMunk2

It was more refusing to allow the police to raid gay businesses, arrest people for being gay, and essentially DOX them to the public and allow for government intrusions.

And agreed, I loathe that new flag. The rainbow was not about skin color, it was supposed to represent people of all backgrounds. There are no purple people.

Streifirabbit

2 years, 10 months ago

link

@ GayMunk2

"Proud to be in the open", hm... maybe this would make sense... Food for thought.
Yet, "proud to be X, Y or Z" still seems to be unnecessary.

Well, being proud of circumstance just doesn't make much sense, which also includes ancestry. You can't chose it or act upon it, so pride about it doesn't make sense to me, considering the definition of pride:
"a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired."
Being gay, or a descendant of a famous person isn't one's own achievement, but circumstance. It's also not the achievement of somebody closely associated with you, however in terms of being a descendend of someone famous, this might slightly count. But it also isn't a possession or quality that is widely admired, it's just a thing you are.
The other definition might fit closest:
"consciousness of one's own dignity."
This might actually be the reason to call it that, but then again, why not just call it "dignity-parade" or "dignity-month" in general?
Then there is the verb, which is about being especially proud of a particular quality or skill, like honesty for example. I can mostly see this partially true for qualities that seem to be hard to uphold in times, like loyalty in an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust for example. But one's own sexuality I can't seem to be on par with that, even more so, when it's supposed to be not that big of a deal to be you. If it is, however, this reflects negative on society, not positively on ones own character.

I guess that is, why I have trouble with the word "pride" in this context...
Please note: I have no problem with the movement itself (I agree it's still necessary to have it around, due to bigots everywhere still in todays society), I just have trouble with the terminology itself.

When it comes to having mastered a difficult coming-out, yes, I agree, this might qualify to feel proud of this achievement, but then again, this doesn't seem to be the motivation behind the naming of the movement.

To answer the implied question of "why not" I'd say "because by being proud of random circumstance could also result in being proud to have two eyes, to breath oxygen or to be able to even feel the emotion of "pride" in the first place." This is how the word alone feels to me. Yet, as I said, I still think the movement itself is necessary, I'm just not really on board with the naming of that thing.

I'm not entirely sure I would be a good example of a person flying the rainbow flag, as I probably would even do that without the political and social motives behind it. Since I have a strong affinity for colorful things since childhood, but then again, that's just a useless anecdote. And yes, race should be it's own thing (as well as identity), race, identity and orientation have (at most) only one thing in common: oppression (whereever it happens). And I feel we could be against all sorts of oppression, without lumping totally different oppressed groups together.

TL:DR;
I mostly agree to what you said, I just feel that "pride" as a name for the movement itself just doesn't make much sense to me in context. Still a necessary movement though.

Yiffox

2 years, 10 months ago

link