LGBTQA+ issues

[vijayjohn]

I'm very sure that meidei replied to my last post here, but I don't see his post anywhere now.

[hreru]

First, it was not my goal to make you angry.

And you didn't. Being exasperated is not the same thing as being angry.

Good to know. Now I don't distinguish between these two too much.

In which case, I'm going to need citations equating "normal" to "common" or "typical". Again, my dictionaries don't do this.

It’s mentioned here a few times. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/normal My old Password gives only one definition: usual, with no special characteristics or circumstances.
Which reminds me, I haven't been given my "homosexuality among all animals" citations.

What harm has Zelmerlöw suffered? He's had his public statements criticised.

Criticism is all right. I didn't mean to suggest any harm suffered. Rather something like, why to choose this man as an example of homophobic behaviour? (But here there are the two different views on what he said, I read the less natural/abnormal neutrally so to me this was not homophobic, you took it as negatively meant.) And yes, if people said "this is so heteronormative" instead of "homophobic" I wouldn't protest. Still I wouldn't see a problem in it.

I see what you didn't like in the hospital and why. (Though you're not telling the history to the right person. My memory for faces, names and relations is somewhat ... limited, to put it nicely, so I'm always ready to forgive anyone who doesn't remember mine as I know how difficult it might be even with great effort.) But to me it's very important if hurting was intentional or not. Not hurting the others is one of my main principles (much more important than helping them ) but oh my, I wouldn't be able to say a word if I should try not to hurt them while I'm unaware of doing so. I don't like microaggression theory at all, accepting it would mean for me making all communication impossible. If someone feels hurt by something I do I want them to let me know. I think in the end it's always down to the two people involved, not a group against another group.

Why should you be put through that? I don't want this to sound harsh but because you're in a minority. In this regard. The physician whom you regard unsensitive to your natural concern to be considered legal husband might, I don't know, suffer from coeliac disease and think people unsensitive to his special needs. You can't expect majority to adapt to you. People have to think in stereotypes to some extent, you would never do anything if you take every situation as if it was new to you. If 99% of marriages are between a man and a woman you don't expect the next one you're going to meet be different.

Misunderstandings happen. I sensed in your second to the last reply to me quite an aggression I was unaware of having provoked, and I understood the "You can't imagine?..." as "you're stupid". It might be similar with your feelings of "you're abnormal" in the hospital.

Not everyone has to like that, but they do have to accept it--and that means altering their assumptions instead of treating the examples they come across as bizarre aberrations.

But this is far from full acceptance. That's what I would call tolerance.

[linguoboy]

Which reminds me, I haven't been given my "homosexuality among all animals" citations.

Bagemihl, Bruce. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. (1999). You can find a selected list of species here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior.

But to me it's very important if hurting was intentional or not. Not hurting the others is one of my main principles (much more important than helping them ) but oh my, I wouldn't be able to say a word if I should try not to hurt them while I'm unaware of doing so.

This is why it's your responsibility to make yourself aware. Why should this burden be on the person being hurt?

I don't like microaggression theory at all, accepting it would mean for me making all communication impossible. If someone feels hurt by something I do I want them to let me know. I think in the end it's always down to the two people involved, not a group against another group.

What does this last statement even mean? Individuals are not sui generis. Their group membership shapes their experiences and this, in turn, informs their behaviour. If you belong to a dominant group in society, it is your responsibility to consider how minority experiences might be different from yours and adjust your behaviour accordingly.

Why should you be put through that? I don't want this to sound harsh but because you're in a minority.

No, that's why I am put through that. Saying "should" makes it sound like I brought this upon myself, which I didn't.

The physician whom you regard unsensitive to your natural concern to be considered legal husband might, I don't know, suffer from coeliac disease and think people unsensitive to his special needs. You can't expect majority to adapt to you.

So it would be unreasonable for the doctor to expect that he should be able to find gluten-free food in a big restaurant that claims ton serve everybody?

Here's what you're missing: When you're a health care professional, understanding who your client is and accommodating their needs is a basic part of doing your job. I gave you the background on HIPPA so you would understand just how fundamental making sure you are telling the right information to the right person is in the medical field. If you can't be bothered to do that correctly, you should do something else. (And if you do violate HIPPA, there is a good chance this decision will be made for you by a professional organisation.)

People have to think in stereotypes to some extent, you would never do anything if you take every situation as if it was new to you. If 99% of marriages are between a man and a woman you don't expect the next one you're going to meet be different.

If your thinking is so stereotyped that there's no room in it for possibilities that may affect only 1% of the population, you should get out of the medical field before you kill someone.

Moreover, this is a fallacious argument. You're saying that the only alternative to assuming heteronormativity is assuming nothing at all. That's not how it works.

Misunderstandings happen. I sensed in your second to the last reply to me quite an aggression I was unaware of having provoked, and I understood the "You can't imagine?..." as "you're stupid". It might be similar with your feelings of "you're abnormal" in the hospital.

I was simply flabbergasted that your imagination could be so limited. I felt like I was being asked to explain something so basic that I couldn't quite believe it was really happening.

Not everyone has to like that, but they do have to accept it--and that means altering their assumptions instead of treating the examples they come across as bizarre aberrations.

But this is far from full acceptance. That's what I would call tolerance.

No, what you are advocating is tolerance. You are encouraging heterosexuals to keep assuming everyone else in the world is the same as them and acting accordingly. As long as they don't do this out of actual animus towards non-straights, it's okay. Right?

I don't believe that. I believe it's high time that people broke out of their antiquated stereotyped way of thinking and began educating themselves in how to deal with the world that really exists. And not just in this area. Members of non-dominant groups--racial, ethnic, religious, etc.--suffer disproportionate harm at the hands of the medical profession. This even happens to women even though they're in the majority. This will keep happening until enough people demand otherwise. (Which is why I brought my concerns to the hospital administration within the first few days. I'm also preparing a formal complaint to the Joint Commission.)

[Yserenhart]

Bagemihl, Bruce. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. (1999). You can find a selected list of species here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior.

If I remember correctly, Bagemihl only provides evidence for homosexuality in about 500 species. The largest number I've heard for there being evidence of is 1.500 species. Both of these are far from all animals. Even if we assume that homosexuality is found in all species that display sexual behaviour, and assume that even those that are truly hermaphroditic engage in sexual behaviour that can be reasonably classed as homosexual, that still leaves all the species that exhibit no sexual behaviour at all. Therefore the statement that "Homosexuality is well within the normal observed range of sexual behaviour … for all animals" is wrong.

This is why it's your responsibility to make yourself aware. Why should this burden be on the person being hurt?

Because if the person being hurt never says anything to the person doing the hurting, how will they ever know they are hurting? Likewise, if the person being hurt doesn't explain why it hurts, how is the person doing the hurting supposed to understand? Education is a two-person process; one person has the responsibility to learn, but the other has the responsibility to teach.

If you belong to a dominant group in society, it is your responsibility to consider how minority experiences might be different from yours and adjust your behaviour accordingly.

If you belong to a minority group, it is your responsibility to explain how your experiences might be different from those of the dominant group. See above.

I was simply flabbergasted that your imagination could be so limited. I felt like I was being asked to explain something so basic that I couldn't quite believe it was really happening.

Believe it or not, there exist people for whom social and non-visual/non-verbal cues are confusing and incomprehensible. Furthermore, in many cases it is difficult, if not impossible to determine things like sexual orientation from non-visual/non-verbal cues.

As for the meaning of the word normal, the definition most appropriate here is the first, "According to norms or rules." The definition for "norm" is "That which is regarded as normal or typical." If we then look at the definition for "typical" (as looking at "normal" gives us a nice infinite loop) that fits the situation best—"Normal, average; to be expected."—then we could indeed say that homosexuality is "abnormal"; synonymous to "atypical" or "uncommon". If I remember correctly, the number normally given is 10% of the population are non-heterosexual (and a quick look at wiki gives me numbers vastly lower than that, less than 5% generally); therefore the vast majority are heterosexual, which makes heterosexuality the common, typical sexual orientation.

[linguoboy]

If you belong to a dominant group in society, it is your responsibility to consider how minority experiences might be different from yours and adjust your behaviour accordingly.

If you belong to a minority group, it is your responsibility to explain how your experiences might be different from those of the dominant group.

Is it also the responsibility of animals to explain to us how our treatment of them is cruel or can we be expected to have the bare minimum of empathy necessary to figure this out for ourselves?

Frankly I feel like LGBTQ people have done more than enough already to explain to the rest of the population how and why heterosexism hurts them. We can hardly be blamed if the majority keep ignoring our testimony. At this point, it's willful ignorance on their part.

I was simply flabbergasted that your imagination could be so limited. I felt like I was being asked to explain something so basic that I couldn't quite believe it was really happening.

Believe it or not, there exist people for whom social and non-visual/non-verbal cues are confusing and incomprehensible. Furthermore, in many cases it is difficult, if not impossible to determine things like sexual orientation from non-visual/non-verbal cues.

I don't understand what you're talking about. What hreru said was:

How do they know they’re gays when these don’t show it?

That is, "How can you tell someone's gay in the absence of visual clues? "And the answer--from non-visual clues (such as being told directly)--is so bleeding obvious I could not understand how it did not occur to him. (Apparently, the confusion stems from his completely misunderstanding of the definition of "show", which is something I really didn't expect, as I've never met any English speaker in my entire life who didn't understand what this word means.)

As for the meaning of the word normal, the definition most appropriate here is the first, "According to norms or rules." The definition for "norm" is "That which is regarded as normal or typical." If we then look at the definition for "typical" (as looking at "normal" gives us a nice infinite loop) that fits the situation best—"Normal, average; to be expected."—then we could indeed say that homosexuality is "abnormal"; synonymous to "atypical" or "uncommon".

Or we could not, because homosexual behaviour is to be expected in mammalian species like humans.

Recall my comparison to eye colour. What proportion of the population have green eyes? It's so unusual that I can't even find percentages for it. At most, maybe 1-2% of the human population are green-eyed. According to your logic, we should be comfortable calling green eyes "abnormal" as well. And maybe that would be acceptable in a research paper where one is using a strict scientific definition of "normal". But that's not how people ordinarily talk. No one says, "Her eyes are abnormal. They're green." Zemerlöw was giving a casual interview, not presenting scientific findings, and so I believe his use of avvilse in that context was wrong.

[linguoboy]

If you care about not harming your fellow human beings, read this. If not, then ignore it and keep on doing what you've been doing:
https://medium.com/@schmutzie/why-it-is-not-my-responsibility-as-a-marginalized-individual-to-educate-you-about-my-experience-915b4ec08efd

[Yserenhart]

Is it also the responsibility of animals to explain to us how our treatment of them is cruel or can we be expected to have the bare minimum of empathy necessary to figure this out for ourselves?

I hope you can see why they're not comparable, given you'd probably be amongst the first to chastise someone else for making such an argument.

Other animals lack the ability to explain things to us. Humans, as a general rule, are able to explain things to other humans.

Frankly I feel like LGBTQ people have done more than enough already to explain to the rest of the population how and why heterosexism hurts them. We can hardly be blamed if the majority keep ignoring our testimony. At this point, it's willful ignorance on their part.

Is it wilful ignorance, or is the testimony not being given in a way that actually reaches the rest of the population without them having to actively search for it (thereby implying they know about the problem in the first place)? In my experience, I come across such testimony more in places like UL, where people who identify as LGBTQ are a greater proportion of people than they are in the general population; and less in places that are more likely to reach the general population. So, in many ways, it seems like that testimony is more being given to the people who don't need the explanation, instead of to those that do.

Or we could not, because homosexual behaviour is to be expected in mammalian species like humans.

"To be expected" is a bit ambiguous. If we take it to mean "is known to occur" then yes, it is to be expected. If, however, we take it more in the context of having to guess the sexuality of a person chosen at random from all humanity, I would guess heterosexual, because statistically, it is not to be expected of someone chosen at random.

Recall my comparison to eye colour. What proportion of the population have green eyes? It's so unusual that I can't even find percentages for it. At most, maybe 1-2% of the human population are green-eyed. According to your logic, we should be comfortable calling green eyes "abnormal" as well. And maybe that would be acceptable in a research paper where one is using a strict scientific definition of "normal". But that's not how people ordinarily talk. No one says, "Her eyes are abnormal. They're green." Zemerlöw was giving a casual interview, not presenting scientific findings, and so I believe his use of avvilse in that context was wrong.

"abnormal"; synonymous to "atypical" or "uncommon"

I would definitely call green eyes atypical or (as a synonym) abnormal; and that's using the definition you linked to.

[vijayjohn]

If I remember correctly, the number normally given is 10% of the population are non-heterosexual (and a quick look at wiki gives me numbers vastly lower than that, less than 5% generally); therefore the vast majority are heterosexual, which makes heterosexuality the common, typical sexual orientation.

But don't you think that's precisely because of heteronormativity and its prevalence in the modern world, at least in part?

Frankly I feel like LGBTQ people have done more than enough already to explain to the rest of the population how and why heterosexism hurts them. We can hardly be blamed if the majority keep ignoring our testimony. At this point, it's willful ignorance on their part.

Is it wilful ignorance, or is the testimony not being given in a way that actually reaches the rest of the population without them having to actively search for it (thereby implying they know about the problem in the first place)? In my experience, I come across such testimony more in places like UL, where people who identify as LGBTQ are a greater proportion of people than they are in the general population; and less in places that are more likely to reach the general population. So, in many ways, it seems like that testimony is more being given to the people who don't need the explanation, instead of to those that do.

Is it really the fault of the marginalized population anyway for not making sure their testimony reaches the rest of the population? Is it possible that the dominant population takes measures to prevent this from happening? Is it possible that people are more likely to share their experiences about being marginalized in a space like UL where they can feel relatively safe about sharing those experiences than in places where they run a greater risk of being punished for saying something? And BTW, who says that people who don't need the explanation aren't getting it just because there are more gay people here on UL than in the general population? Don't you and I need the explanation, and aren't we getting it?

Also, um, I have to ask, wtf are straight people doing trying to argue with gay people about discrimination against gay people on a forum where, like, most of the users are openly gay?

[Lauren]

Also, um, I have to ask, wtf are straight people doing trying to argue with gay people about discrimination against gay people on a forum where, like, most of the users are openly gay?

Because the majority, the oppressors, like to be in power and tell everyone else how they should feel and behave instead of shutting the fuck and and listening to the oppressed.

[md0]

Speaking about heterosexism, an update on that case in Greece I wrote about here.
The guy was of course found dead. Suicide, slit his wrists in a forest outside the town. His death was attributed to "bullying", but no-one wants to speak about the specifics. At first they even tried to pin it at "bad grades", and then "unrequited romantic feelings for a local girl", even though before he was found dead even the bullies themselves admitted to "training him to be a manly Cretan". His parents described him as "special", "timid" etc.
He was tormented for months (at least) before he wasn't manly, he took his life for that, and the family and the society will still not admit that it was sexism who killed him. Now, when you try to get into the root of the bullying he suffered, they tell you "don't soil the name of the dead - you don't know if he was really gay".
It doesn't fucking matter if he was gay, and I personally never thought he was gay because I know several non-manly straight people who were bullied - everyone already admitted that they were trying to make him be more manly.

[Yserenhart]

But don't you think that's precisely because of heteronormativity and its prevalence in the modern world, at least in part?

A part, quite possible. But is society heterosexual because it's heteronormative, or is it heteronormative because it's heterosexual? I'm inclined to believe it's more the latter, given very few species show exclusive homosexual behaviour (most that have homosexual behaviour having really more bisexual behaviour), and even in those that do, very low percentages of the population.

Is it really the fault of the marginalized population anyway for not making sure their testimony reaches the rest of the population? Is it possible that the dominant population takes measures to prevent this from happening? Is it possible that people are more likely to share their experiences about being marginalized in a space like UL where they can feel relatively safe about sharing those experiences than in places where they run a greater risk of being punished for saying something? And BTW, who says that people who don't need the explanation aren't getting it just because there are more gay people here on UL than in the general population? Don't you and I need the explanation, and aren't we getting it?

It is indeed possible (and happens) that the dominant population, or at least parts of it, try to prevent that testimony being introduced into the general population. But it is also the case, as with so many other topics, that the people who can teach others from experience just don't do so (that very common "not my job" for example).

As you said yourself, (seemingly) most UL users are openly gay, and most of the rest already understand the problem, and don't need to have it explained to them. I can't speak for you, but I don't need to have it explained to me that there is discrimination, and the various forms it takes; indeed I sometimes am one trying to give the explanation.

Also, um, I have to ask, wtf are straight people doing trying to argue with gay people about discrimination against gay people on a forum where, like, most of the users are openly gay?

I hope you're not assuming I'm straight . Nor am I arguing about the discrimination itself existing, per se; more being pedantic about a word.

I will admit that I'm a bit doubtful that all of the discrimination shared here on UL that's attributed to heteronormativity is actually because of it. For example, part of linguoboy's testimony about the staff in hospital, and it being assumed that his husband was his father; I think that with any combination of genders, and swapping the ages of the two, it would still have been assumed to be a parent-child relationship rather than a married couple.

Because the majority, the oppressors, like to be in power and tell everyone else how they should feel and behave instead of shutting the fuck and and listening to the oppressed.

But fortunately we have the minority to tell the majority to shut the fuck up instead of encouraging proper discussion in which all groups can be equally heard.

[Lauren]

Because the majority, the oppressors, like to be in power and tell everyone else how they should feel and behave instead of shutting the fuck and and listening to the oppressed.

But fortunately we have the minority to tell the majority to shut the fuck up instead of encouraging proper discussion in which all groups can be equally heard.

You talk as if you're sarcastic, but you are actually right. When talking about LGBTQ lives, LGBTQ people know best, not heterosexual people. The same goes for other minorities; People of color know better about their lives than white people do. I'm white myself and know to shut up and listen to people of color in discussions about racism.

Proper discussion in this case is not letting the majority take over the conversation and letting the minority be heard, because historically the minority is oppressed and silenced by the majority. Make sense?

[Yserenhart]

If you care about not harming your fellow human beings, read this. If not, then ignore it and keep on doing what you've been doing:
https://medium.com/@schmutzie/why-it-is-not-my-responsibility-as-a-marginalized-individual-to-educate-you-about-my-experience-915b4ec08efd

"It is not my responsibility as a marginalized individual to educate you about my experience, because:"
There are other people that have had the same experiences in the same way with the same feelings?.

1. Nothing stopping people asking if they don't understand what it's like. Indeed, more people should ask, instead of assuming the experience is the same for everyone.
2. No, we don't. Not to mention most people don't have the curiosity to start from nothing, with no help.
3. Indeed.
4. But it is rude to answer in a way that comes across as hostile and rude. Especially when in the same amount of time and breath you could answer more politely and helpfully. (e.g. "The wiki page about it provides a better starting point than I can.")
5. If someone wants their experience to be understood, then the expectation they give an explanation is not unreasonable.
6. That is true. But that doesn't mean people can't ask, and as with 4. a helpful reply is always better than a dismissive one.
7. 8. 9. A person does speak for their experiences, as the title says.
10. If the claims and your experiences disagree, it might be helpful to try and explain, should you want to speak for yourself.
11. Educating about your experiences doesn't have to mean debating your experiences.
12. Of course not, but your experiences won't get more understood by expecting others to teach themselves about them.
13. Indeed, but that isn't necessarily a reason not to try. If you don't want to, see 4.
14. 15. Not every question has to be answered.
16. 17. 18. See 4.
19. Indeed.
20. 21. If noöne is willing to teach, then noöne will learn.

[Yserenhart]

You talk as if you're sarcastic, but you are actually right. When talking about LGBTQ lives, LGBTQ people know best, not heterosexual people. The same goes for other minorities; People of color know better about their lives than white people do. I'm white myself and know to shut up and listen to people of color in discussions about racism.

Proper discussion in this case is not letting the majority take over the conversation and letting the minority be heard, because historically the minority is oppressed and silenced by the majority. Make sense?

Good luck not having the majority silence other groups if you tell them they can't also be equally heard. Also, must be a lot of sex if one's life can be defined solely by sexuality .

Sarcasm aside, that's very much part of the problem; people aren't just one group. I'm white, so the majority (but only if you concentrate on Europe and the anglophone world) racially; but in a discussion on race, it's very likely being poor would come up, and suddenly, I'm in the minority. Everyone has different experiences; and everyone must be equally allowed to have a say in a discussion if they're to listen and take part; even if you do think those experiences are worthless in the discussion, you may just be wrong and/or learn something, believe it or not.

@Yserenhart: I'm not sure if you're ignorant of LGBTQ people's lives in society or you're trying to play devil's advocate where it's not appreciated.

You're doing #11 exactly:

the marginalized individual’s existence and experiences are not actually up for your reasoned feedback or debate.

How about neither? I'm sharing my experiences in how they relate to the topic in some ways, being pedantic in others.

But you're right: I apologise to everyone for debating or giving feedback on your experiences, and trying to participate in a discussion about discrimination that has affected me, and the ways I feel some of it is being misattributed in cause or given untenable solutions. I will refrain from doing so in future, because of course the aim is never to help each other grow in knowledge and understanding, but merely to lecture at each other without listening, and assume that only our interpretations of experiences are the correct ones. I also thank your for your feedback and debate on my experiences that is perfectly ok to give because I'm not (seemingly) a marginalised individual.

I wish everyone the greatest success at combatting discrimination and educating others about the effects of their actions by being dismissive of educating them, hostile to helping grow their understanding, and refusing to hear alternate viewpoints on situations and experiences that might help find a solution to the problem as it exists for everyone, as opposed to just for yourself.

[hreru]

As Yserenhart answered for me and in a better way, only a few things:

You are encouraging heterosexuals to keep assuming everyone else in the world is the same as them and acting accordingly. As long as they don't do this out of actual animus towards non-straights, it's okay. Right?

No. I encourage heterosexuals to keep assuming their sexuality is the prevailing one but to be aware at the same time there are people who have it different way and they're not less valuable just because of that. Still it doesn't mean they're not minority in this respect.

Everyone is different, and many have to try harder, explain more or find more information, control themselves more, in some area, and still after all that be misunderstood by some. We're only people. You have surely hurt many people without knowing, or even with the best intentions. It's always only supposing what might hurt the other one and what's important for them, you can never know for sure. You being part of a group doesn't mean you see it the same way as its other members. I don't think all gays would feel hurt by the same joke about gays, for example. Some might be hurt, some might laugh at it. Everyone takes offence at something different, I might know generally what they would probably be touchy about but not in individual cases. There's probably not a single joke in the whole world that would not offend at least one person. I don't know if the person doesn't stand before me. Shall I quit joking?

What hreru said was:

How do they know they’re gays when these don’t show it?

That is, "How can you tell someone's gay in the absence of visual clues? "And the answer--from non-visual clues (such as being told directly)--is so bleeding obvious I could not understand how it did not occur to him. (Apparently, the confusion stems from his completely misunderstanding of the definition of "show", which is something I really didn't expect, as I've never met any English speaker in my entire life who didn't understand what this word means.)

Right. I thought to show could be used to mean to manifest, to let know – regardless of the means. If I show regret or if I say "Let me show you how this works" does it mean I won't say I'm sorry and I won't explain verbally what's happening?

If it's my responsibility not to hurt the other people, why do you refer of me as of him while my gender clearly states female just under my nick? Why didn't you check first? What if this is a sensitive issue for me? Well it isn't, really. But it might.

[linguoboy]

[I see that the person I'm responding to has since flounced--which is just as well, since my bingo card was getting awfully full--but I still think the points raised here are worth addressing.]

I will admit that I'm a bit doubtful that all of the discrimination shared here on UL that's attributed to heteronormativity is actually because of it. For example, part of linguoboy's testimony about the staff in hospital, and it being assumed that his husband was his father; I think that with any combination of genders, and swapping the ages of the two, it would still have been assumed to be a parent-child relationship rather than a married couple.

Two things:
1. Ageism is also shitty, and people should knock that shit off, too.
2. I think you're flat-out wrong that the same assumptions would necessarily have been made about an opposite-sex couple. It really depends on the genders involved. Older man/younger woman relationships are nothing unusual in US society. (You can probably name several such pairings without giving it much thought.) Older woman/younger man, however, is far rarer and I would expect people in these sorts of relationships to have to put up with just as much bullshit as me on this score, perhaps more.

[It might help to know that I have been in LTR relationships with a significant age gap for more than 20 years now. In all that time, I have never ever had a queer person mistake us for father and son. It's only non-queer people who do this. That's why I'm comfortable calling it heterosexist behaviour.]

The point is that these people should not be making any assumptions about the relationship between the two people involved beyond that one of them is a relative/friend of the other. This is not hard to do, as plenty of people manage to get it right. The very same day that the one doctor "forgot" again that the patient was my husband and another introduced to me for the first time asked, "You're the son?" I met a freelance photographer who happened to be shooting in the hospital. He just said, "Family relationship?" No guessing, no biased assumptions, just an open question which left the definition entirely up to me. I got the feeling I could've said anything from "I've tasted his penis" to "I'd rather not say" and he would've taken it in stride. (I don't expect that kind of nonchalance from everyone, but it's certainly something to aim for, isn't it?)

ETA:Oh, and one more thing.

20. 21. If noöne is willing to teach, then noöne will learn.

If someone isn't willing to learn, then it doesn't matter whether someone is willing to teach them or not. Ultimately, we all teach ourselves everything. Others just facilitate this process.

[linguoboy]

You are encouraging heterosexuals to keep assuming everyone else in the world is the same as them and acting accordingly. As long as they don't do this out of actual animus towards non-straights, it's okay. Right?

No. I encourage heterosexuals to keep assuming their sexuality is the prevailing one but to be aware at the same time there are people who have it different way and they're not less valuable just because of that.

And yet you reject microaggression theory because it makes you feel bad. Sorry, but microaggressions don't cease to cause harm just because you don't want them to or like to believe that intent is all that matters.

I thought to show could be used to mean to manifest, to let know – regardless of the means. If I show regret or if I say "Let me show you how this works" does it mean I won't say I'm sorry and I won't explain verbally what's happening?

"Let me show you how this works" say nothing about whether a verbal explanation is part of the package or not. What it absolutely does mean, however, is that a visual demonstration is the central event. If you were giving only and explanation and not demonstrating anything, you would say "Let me tell you how this works".

Same with "show regret". A verbal apology might be part of the demonstration of regret and it might not. But a change in the person's behaviour is absolutely involved. Again, if this were absent, you would instead say something like "express regret".

If it's my responsibility not to hurt the other people, why do you refer of me as of him while my gender clearly states female just under my nick? Why didn't you check first? What if this is a sensitive issue for me? Well it isn't, really.

You are absolutely right to call me out on that and I owe you an apology--regardless whether this bothers you or not. I am sorry for the mistake and a promise not to make it again. It was sloppy of me not to check and I should be more careful.

(See, how hard is that to do? And yet it was still beyond the capabilities of the doctor I mentioned earlier.)

[Lauren]

Don't fret, linguoboy, I was surprised too! I assumed hreru was a guy since it is more likely for men to be anti-feminists on the internet than women. Not impossible though.

[linguoboy]

Don't fret, linguoboy, I was surprised too!

I'm not fretting and I'm not surprised. hreru's right, I didn't take the time to check (to be honest, I forgot there even was an option for including one's gender on one's posts) and as a result I made an easily-avoided mistake. I'm not going to beat myself up about it; I'm simply going to do better. That's all I ask of anyone.

[Lauren]

Well I was surprised.