Rail Enthusiasts and Sexual Orientation

[61653 HTAFC]

You need to look on Grindr. The number of gay men who discriminate against others: 'Masc4masc', 'no Gaysians', 'Muscular only', 'No fems' are just some of the commonly thrown insults.

I have held a profile in Grindr in the past. Those examples are no different to expressing any other preferences based on appearance, which many people do. They are a little blunt, I admit! Much like on "straight" dating sites, some of those preferences may indicate a prejudice that goes beyond "that's just not what I'm into", or they may not.

 

[bramling]

You need to look on Grindr. The number of gay men who discriminate against others: 'Masc4masc', 'no Gaysians', 'Muscular only', 'No fems' are just some of the commonly thrown insults.

I don't see how that's an insult. Surely everyone, whatever sexual orientation, has different preferences as to what they like to go with.

In general I agree with the various posts alluding to a dislike of categorising people based on labels.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A simple solution to that would be:

Are you interested in:
□ Men
□ Women
□ Other​

Personally, I feel that's a better way of going about it. Less emphasis on same sex/opposite sex attraction and more about who you actually like.

I don't think that changes anything of significance. It's just using different words to describe the same concept - but the concept of being someone who is interested in a certain gender, and accepting that as a categorisation is still there - as it has to be since other people need to know whether you and they are the appropriate genders for a mutual attraction to be possible.

 

[Bayum]

I have held a profile in Grindr in the past. Those examples are no different to expressing any other preferences based on appearance, which many people do. They are a little blunt, I admit! Much like on "straight" dating sites, some of those preferences may indicate a prejudice that goes beyond "that's just not what I'm into", or they may not.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just drawing attention towards the point you made whereby people 'categorise' others, which you said was problematic. I was merely pointing out that in those 'categories' people still categorise further.

 

[Bevan Price]

I like women, particularly those with big t*ts - unfortunately I failed to find one who wishes to be with me -- (or one who can be trusted.).

I cannot imagine ever wanting to do "anything physical" with another man - but good luck to anyone who finds "pleasure" in such things.

 

[southern442]

I'm surprised at how many people are LGBT+ on here. Even though straight people are in the majority I would have thought it would be a larger majority than what it is. I'm bisexual myself and I've come to realise that I have absolutely no preference with any type of person whatsoever, because quite often the feelings will come regardless of any standards or rules that you give yourself. I think this is quite a fascinating topic for a hobby that couldn't be less sexual (bar the odd person or two ) and it's very interesting to see the demographic for an activity where the thought of sexuality comes up so rarely.

 

[BestWestern]

So in all of this enthusiasm for categories, they've even invented one, "cisgender", for people "whose gender identity matches their sex" - i.e. a "traditional", shall we say, person who doesn't require a category, but who now apparently has one anyway.

Is there a category for those of us who don't wish to be in a category? Can I still just be a bloke, or is that lacking several layers of mandatory filtering and categorisation? That's a serious question.

Do those who identify with these categories categorise all their friends, family, colleagues and acquaintences? Is the exercise optional, or should we all be aware of which category we belong in? I might have to write mine down. Can we expect these questions in the next census, staff survey or store card application? Those are also serious questions by the way, I'm baffled. And finally, is it okay to find the clinical sectorisation of humanity really quite offensive, or does that make me a bigot? Or perhaps something more categorically specific?

 

[TheNewNo2]

So in all of this enthusiasm for categories, they've even invented one, "cisgender", for people "whose gender identity matches their sex" - i.e. a "traditional", shall we say, person who doesn't require a category, but who now apparently has one anyway.

Is there a category for those of us who don't wish to be in a category? Can I still just be a bloke, or is that lacking several layers of mandatory filtering and categorisation? That's a serious question.

Do those who identify with these categories categorise all their friends, family, colleagues and acquaintences? Is the exercise optional, or should we all be aware of which category we belong in? I might have to write mine down. Can we expect these questions in the next census, staff survey or store card application? Those are also serious questions by the way, I'm baffled. And finally, is it okay to find the clinical sectorisation of humanity really quite offensive, or does that make me a bigot? Or perhaps something more categorically specific?

Cisgender is a pretty simple term, it's not meant to be offensive, it's just that if you have a term for X, you generally need a term for not X as well. It's not a term you'll find in regular use, because by and large it's unnecessary - much as you don't find people described as straight much in the news, because it's generally considered the default.

And gender-wise, the category for those who do not wish to be categorised is genderqueer, where you can be with Miley Cyrus!

 

[DarloRich]

Legally, few if any. Practically however, you have the right to walk down the street and not be seen as a sex object, a terrorist, or a threat to children's safety. You can walk around after dark in relative safety, knowing that you're unlikely to get raped or assaulted. You get to be who you are without people trying to "fix" you, or claiming you're just in denial. You know that if you talk to an authority figure they will help you, not kill you. You get to live your life without worrying too much what others think of you. You get to be blind to the difficulties that others face.

WOW. I really don't know where to start with this silliness. It all just reads like a needy sociologists wet dream. Your statement is simply preposterous and childish.

Are you suggesting that as a man I am prepossessed to rape or assault women?

Are you suggesting that as a "cis" (?) or LGBT person if you go to the police to report a crime they will shoot you dead on the spot?

Are you suggesting that the mere sight of the 7 ft tall transsexuals I see walking down my street on route to the massive LGBT club near my house will be enough to bring on a neanderthal like rage and make rush into the street and club them to death? Hell i better not go again. Luckily i was able to get out without murdering anyone but i cant take that risk again. Shame as it is a decent club and a nice night out but safety first.

Are you saying that as a man i am immune to assault or robbery. Perhaps those people who stole my bag thought I was a woman or trans person.

Hopefully all people will see me as a sex object but as I am yet to develop clairvoyance I wont know unless someone approaches me.

Yes, the PM is a woman, Ireland has a gay (I think ethnic minority) Taoiseach, and those are great things on a representational basis. The US had a black president. Then they elected a misogynistic racist to follow him. In France the Nazi candidate got 25% of the presidential vote. In Austria it was 45%. On a daily basis, May and Obama have to put up with vitriol that no white male politician experiences. Obama had to go through ten years of people refusing to believe that he was actually eligible to be president, of people claiming he was Muslim, of repeated racist attacks. May, Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, have to put up with interminable articles about how they dress, whether they smile enough, whether they are too feminine or not feminine enough. They get questions of who looks after the children, which would never be asked of a male politician.

Women make up around 52% of the population but, as of 2010, only 22% of MPs were women. 13% of people living in the UK are of ethnic minorities, but in 2010 only 4% of MPs were. The numbers are similar for directors of FTSE companies. Women, accounting for age, profession and experience, earn roughly 15% less than men, across the board. People of colour also generally earn less than white people.

You may not have any extra rights, but you sure as hell have privilege.

more sociological clap trap. OF COURSE there is room for improvement but things are much better than they have ever been. Things are not as terrible as your world view suggests.

For instance my employer has transparent pay ranges that apply to all equally. My department head is a woman. My director is a woman. I have worked for more female bosses than male. I am the only male in my team. However at executive level there is only a 6/4 split in favour of men.

So in all of this enthusiasm for categories, they've even invented one, "cisgender", for people "whose gender identity matches their sex" - i.e. a "traditional", shall we say, person who doesn't require a category, but who now apparently has one anyway.

Is there a category for those of us who don't wish to be in a category? Can I still just be a bloke, or is that lacking several layers of mandatory filtering and categorisation? That's a serious question.

Do those who identify with these categories categorise all their friends, family, colleagues and acquaintences? Is the exercise optional, or should we all be aware of which category we belong in? I might have to write mine down. Can we expect these questions in the next census, staff survey or store card application? Those are also serious questions by the way, I'm baffled. And finally, is it okay to find the clinical sectorisation of humanity really quite offensive, or does that make me a bigot? Or perhaps something more categorically specific?

Agreed - Can we not just be people and treat each others as we find as as we would want others to treat us? Do we all need a special label or a special classification to belong to?

 

[BestWestern]

WOW. I really don't know where to start with this silliness....Are you suggesting that as a man I am prepossessed to rape or assault women?

Regretfully, in the deeply confused bubbles of certain 'campaigners' and their cronies, yes we are. Men are a huge threat to womenkind and we must all be treated with suspicion.

There was fairly recently a hugely offensive campaign on Facebook that men must be 'taught that rape is wrong'. If ever we required an example of how far amiss all this utter nonsense is taking us, there it is. Evidence if ever there was of just how disgustingly discriminatory people are allowed to be if they have a bleeding heart banner to wave. I would put that revolting 'campaign' on exactly the same shelf as "all Muslims are terrorists", yet oddly enough that particular slur is dealt with far more robustly than this nasty little "all men are rapists" poison. Of course, as a white British male with no special or minority group to associate myself with, I matter about as much as next door's hamster. So, in spite of having been accused of being a born rapist and assaulter of women, I won't be allowed to get upset and will just have to get on with it.

 

[najaB]

WOW. I really don't know where to start with this silliness..

Race, rather than gender identity, but I presume you haven't been accosted in the street and told to 'Go back where you came from'? I have. I still love Belfast.

Nobody is saying that you, or any other specific individual is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xynophobic or any other -ist or -ic, but as part of the traditional majority you are less likely to experience discrimination. Simple fact.

 

[DarloRich]

Race, rather than gender identity, but I presume you haven't been accosted in the street and told to 'Go back where you came from'? I have. I still love Belfast.

Nobody is saying that you, or any other specific individual is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xynophobic or any other -ist or -ic, but as part of the traditional majority you are less likely to experience discrimination. Simple fact.

The simple fact is that you and others believe that simply by being a man I am a danger to women or another group. That is, frankly, claptrap. Idiots and morons are a risk to people, not men per se.

BTW - you don't know what i have experienced or faced in life.

 

[NSEFAN]

The simple fact is that you and others believe that simply by being a man I am a danger to women or another group. That is, frankly, claptrap. Idiots and morons are a risk to people, not men per se.

BTW - you don't know what i have experienced or faced in life.

That's hardly fair. Some people do believe that kind of rubbish, but that's not what was said? Highlighted in bold is the main point, which I personally think is valid:

Nobody is saying that you, or any other specific individual is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xynophobic or any other -ist or -ic, but as part of the traditional majority you are less likely to experience discrimination. Simple fact.

 

[najaB]

The simple fact is that you and others believe that simply by being a man I am a danger to women or another group. That is, frankly, claptrap.

It's news to me that I think that. Thanks for letting me know. I'd also appreciate you pointing out any post where I have said so and I'll happily correct it.

BTW - you don't know what i have experienced or faced in life.

I don't. Which is why I said 'presume'.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nobody is saying that you, or any other specific individual is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xynophobic or any other -ist or -ic, but as part of the traditional majority you are less likely to experience discrimination. Simple fact.

This is true.

I think there lies a bigger question around how minority groups advance their cause in the current age. There seems to be a political climate which isn't conducive to debating what I'll broadly call "identity issues" - rather, the priority problems we face in 2017 as a whole society are around immigration, energy security, emerging tech, and the globalisation/protectionism debate.

In the age of mass news, 24/7 reporting and mass internet and social media access, it can be very easy to grow weary of "All The Stuff". We're just overloaded with issues and it is easy to compartmentalise, and dismiss issues which do not direct affect oneself. Thus, when someone from, say, the trans community, bemoans (probably correctly) that trans people are subject to discrimination and do not enjoy parity of esteem - unless you're directly connected to the issue at hand then I'm afraid it is easy to write it off as a non-issue.

What's the solution? I'm not sure, but I don't think it lies in mass campaigns. I think language should be chosen more carefully to avoid bracketing ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives as "part of the problem" - even if, indirectly, they might be. I think it's unhelpful.

 

[DarloRich]

That's hardly fair. Some people do believe that kind of rubbish, but that's not what was said?

I'd appreciate you pointing out any post where I have said so and I'll happily correct it.

it was clearly said here:

Legally, few if any. Practically however, you have the right to walk down the street and not be seen as a sex object, a terrorist, or a threat to children's safety. You can walk around after dark in relative safety, knowing that you're unlikely to get raped or assaulted. You get to be who you are without people trying to "fix" you, or claiming you're just in denial. You know that if you talk to an authority figure they will help you, not kill you. You get to live your life without worrying too much what others think of you. You get to be blind to the difficulties that others face.

You seem to agree with the inference that as a man I am simply a waking rapist waiting to happen. That is both disgusting and insulting.

BTW - how does a gay rapist fit into this agenda?

 

[najaB]

You seem to agree with the inference that as a man I am simply a waking rapist waiting to happen.

I do not. And I clearly said as much "Nobody is saying that you, or any other specific individual is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xynophobic or any other -ist or -ic."

 

[NSEFAN]

You seem to agree with the inference that as a man I am simply a waking rapist waiting to happen. That is both disgusting and insulting.

BTW - how does a gay rapist fit into this agenda?

Are you even reading what is actually written? TheNewNo2 is saying people who are LBGT are more likely to suffer discrimination or harassment. He has not said this:

as a man I am simply a waking rapist waiting to happen.

which is how you seem to interpret it (and I'm honestly not sure why).

 

[najaB]

What's the solution? I'm not sure, but I don't think it lies in mass campaigns. I think language should be chosen more carefully to avoid bracketing ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives as "part of the problem" - even if, indirectly, they might be. I think it's unhelpful.

I'm not a religious person and don't associate with any particular religion, but I think that one thing that most religions have in common is a variation of "Treat other people like you want to be treated." It's sound advice.

 

[DarloRich]

I do not. And I clearly said as much "Nobody is saying that you, or any other specific individual is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xynophobic or any other -ist or -ic."

so I am simply an oppressor of minorities by virtue of being a white man?

I know that discrimination exists and is practiced by narrow minded idiots throughout the world. However I cant change all of them and nor can i be held responsible for the actions that have gone before. I can try and live my life properly and try to challenge that discrimination where I can. It is somewhat annoying to be told by right on sociologists that I am somehow responsible for the very discrimination i try hard to avoid.

BTW i recently lost out on a job in an external company to a woman. That was because of positive discrimination. Is that acceptable because it helps one of the oppressed? Am i not discriminated against in that case because of my gender? I guess that is ok though and is my punishment for being a white man.

Are you even reading what is actually written? TheNewNo2 is saying people who are LBGT are more likely to suffer discrimination or harassment. He has not said this:

which is how you seem to interpret it (and I'm honestly not sure why).

no - by inference he is saying that because i am a white man i am more likely to discriminate against different people. That is an appalling statement and one that should be challenged.

 

[najaB]

So I am simply an oppressor of minorities by virtue of being a white man?

Having never met you, I wouldn't have the slightest clue and make no assumption either way. Are you?

 

[DarloRich]

Having never met you, I wouldn't have the slightest clue and make no assumption either way. Are you?

the only assumptions I make are that we as people should treat each other as we would like to be treated. That is what I try to do and I really don't like to "label" people. We are all the same inside and have the same needs and desires. If i meet someone their label doesn't change my option of someone. A person being a prat is still a prat.

We want to be in stable, supportive, loving relationships, we want to be healthy, we want to have friends, we want to have food on the table and a roof over our heads and we want some money in our pocket to spend on enjoyment. To me the rest doesn't really matter. If you want a label then fine. I don't want or need one.

 

[NSEFAN]

so I am simply an oppressor of minorities by virtue of being a white man?

I know that discrimination exists and is practiced by narrow minded idiots throughout the world. However I cant change all of them and nor can i be held responsible for the actions that have gone before. I can try and live my life properly and try to challenge that discrimination where I can. It is somewhat annoying to be told by right on sociologists that I am somehow responsible for the very discrimination i try hard to avoid.

Someone has merely pointed out the discrimination that exists with regard to LGBT people in society. Why do you keep on taking that as a personal attack on you?

BTW i recently lost out on a job in an external company to a woman. That was because of positive discrimination. Is that acceptable because it helps one of the oppressed? Am i not discriminated against in that case because of my gender? I guess that is ok though and is my punishment for being a white man.

I agree that this shouldn't happen. The best person for a job should get the job regardless of their demographic. Discrimination isn't fixed with more discrimination.

I think a better approach for job applications would be initial applications have to be "blind", so the employer filters people out based on the quality of their job applications (with gender/age/religion etc only being shown if it's relevant). This way everyone gets a chance to have an interview based only on their ability. Sadly, human interaction means that it's not possible to have completely blind job applications, but it would certainly help reduce the impact of sub-conscious discrimination.

 

[najaB]

the only assumptions I make are that we as people should treat each other as we would like to be treated.

With respect, in this thread you have assumed quite a bit and ascribed motives to myself (and others) which are not supported by our posts.

Perhaps we are all not as open minded and tolerant as we think we are and we all should learn to listen more than we speak.

 

[DarloRich]

Someone has merely pointed out the discrimination that exists with regard to LGBT people in society. Why do you keep on taking that as a personal attack on you?

That isnt what was pointed out. The inference is that as a white man I am more likely to practice that discrimination.

 

[najaB]

The inference is that as a white man I am more likely to practice that discrimination.

Statistically, a randomly selected white male is more likely to have discriminated against a non-white, non-male than have been the subject of discrimination by a non-white, non-male but that doesn't mean that any prediction can be made about any individual in the set.

I haven't seen any post that makes a prediction about you personally. If I've missed it, I would appreciate you pointing it out.

 

[NSEFAN]

That isnt what was pointed out. The inference is that as a white man I am more likely to practice that discrimination.

Why are you inferring that from what's written? All that's been said is LGBT people are more likely to be on the receiving end of discrimination/attacks, which is not the same as saying that non-LGBT people are likely to be the ones doing the discriminating/attacking.

Furthermore, even if the original statement was "attacks are more likely to be committed by non-LGBT people", that is still not the same as "non-LGBT people are more likely to commit attacks" which is how you seem to interpret it. I honestly don't know the figures on the latter, although I can well believe the former simply because there's a lot more non-LGBT people in society.

 

[EM2]

That isnt what was pointed out. The inference is that as a white man I am more likely to practice that discrimination.

That's not what was said at all.
White, heterosexual, cis men (and I am one) are the dominant social group (especially in the UK and Western Europe).
They are more likely to discriminate against people not in that group. That does not mean that as a member of that group, that you are more prone to discrimination, but it does mean that if discrimination has taken place, it is more likely to be by a person from that group.
Not recognising that is privilege.

 

[yorkie]

I don't think it helps to criticise so-called "labelling" or "categorising" of people.

As others have said, terms are used to describe things because it is only natural to come up with terms to describe things; otherwise you would keep having to repeat the description and it would be unworkable.

That isnt what was pointed out. The inference is that as a white man I am more likely to practice that discrimination.

I see no evidence that anyone has inferred that.

You are interpreting it in that way, but no-one is actually saying this.

Our society is much more inclusive these days but still more needs to be done.

 

[DarloRich]

Our society is much more inclusive these days but still more needs to be done.

I agree entirely

Point taken - perhaps we should all move on in the spirit of togetherness.