Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[inked]

TWFM,

I think I see. It is not the words nor their meanings but the intent of the author. Does the lifestyle of choice include mindreading to know that intent?

For instance, if I say "handedness" has certain associations based on data, such that persons who are left-handed have shorter lifespans based on specific studies. And if I then say that left-handed lifestyles have little impact on survival, am I guilty of some vague and nebulous assault on left-handed people?

Would it be better if I said the levorotary-inclined have demonstrably shorter lifespans? or dextrorotary-inclined live longer on average?

If the CDC says that the average lifespan of gay lifestyle persons is 7 -10 years less than the average non-gay lifestyle person, is that a responsible usage, a lewd usage, or an acceptable usage?

The point is that there is a gay lifestyle. It is supposed to be elevated, respected, and authenticated per multiple persons and websites and newspaper articles and magazines, not to mention certain church groups. So, what is wrong with using a transcultural label for a choice of lifestyle that has demonstrable characteristics and consequences?

As WS noted, "a rose is a rose is a rose" .

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

TWFM,

I think I see. It is not the words nor their meanings but the intent of the author. Does the lifestyle of choice include mindreading to know that intent?

For instance, if I say "handedness" has certain associations based on data, such that persons who are left-handed have shorter lifespans based on specific studies. And if I then say that left-handed lifestyles have little impact on survival, am I guilty of some vague and nebulous assault on left-handed people?

Would it be better if I said the levorotary-inclined have demonstrably shorter lifespans? or dextrorotary-inclined live longer on average?

If the CDC says that the average lifespan of gay lifestyle persons is 7 -10 years less than the average non-gay lifestyle person, is that a responsible usage, a lewd usage, or an acceptable usage?

The point is that there is a gay lifestyle. It is supposed to be elevated, respected, and authenticated per multiple persons and websites and newspaper articles and magazines, not to mention certain church groups. So, what is wrong with using a transcultural label for a choice of lifestyle that has demonstrable characteristics and consequences?

I pointed out what seems obvious to me: that is, that it is the signified, not the signifier that metters. (Said that, I have read my Micheal Foucault and I know that the relationship between signifier and signified is not that simple)

Originally Posted by inked

As WS noted, "a rose is a rose is a rose" .

omnia munda mundis

[Nurvingiel]

Oh no, not another Latin speaker in this thread! (Kidding guys. ) (I'm not ignoring your post TWFM, I just didn't understand it, not having read Michael Foucault. )

Originally Posted by inked

For instance, if I say "handedness" has certain associations based on data, such that persons who are left-handed have shorter lifespans based on specific studies. And if I then say that left-handed lifestyles have little impact on survival, am I guilty of some vague and nebulous assault on left-handed people?

Would it be better if I said the levorotary-inclined have demonstrably shorter lifespans? or dextrorotary-inclined live longer on average?

Shouldn't that be sinisteraly-inclined? I'm really thinking lavatory there.

Anyway, I know this is off-topic, but I have to comment, as a left-handed person. I don't understand how we would have a shorter lifespan. This doesn't make any sense to me. What on earth would many left-handed people do to make our average life-span shorter? Apprently, men also have a shorter lifespan. (So if you're a left-handed gay man, you're screwed! )

As for wordage, exchanging ordinary words for long words doesn't change the intent of a statement.

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic...

Originally Posted by inked

If the CDC says that the average lifespan of gay lifestyle persons is 7 -10 years less than the average non-gay lifestyle person, is that a responsible usage, a lewd usage, or an acceptable usage?

In this case, why would you say lifestyle at all? It doesn't make sense. If I was presenting this data, I'd say "The average gay person has a lifespan 7 - 10 years shorter than the average straight person." Now, doesn't that make a lot more sense? Maybe I should leave "non-gay" in though, in case you were including transgendered people in the latter part and not the former.

Originally Posted by inked

The point is that there is a gay lifestyle. It is supposed to be elevated, respected, and authenticated per multiple persons and websites and newspaper articles and magazines, not to mention certain church groups. So, what is wrong with using a transcultural label for a choice of lifestyle that has demonstrable characteristics and consequences?

Well, if gay people don't care about it, then I don't. But in this thread at least, people do take objection at it, because it has been used to pigeon-hole gay people (either on purpose or by mistake).

It just seems to me Inked, that you present some data (for the most part the data is valid), then you draw your own conclusions, or site someone else's conclusions. I have no problem with you doing this, but it appears you believe these conclusions are factual. Conclusions based on good data are not necessarily true, even when it appears the data supports them. This is why I feel you take too simplistic of an approach.

Let's say there are studies out there where the data says "The average gay person has a lifestyle 7 - 10 years shorter than the average straight person." Since you used that number in your post, there probably is, even though, if that's the same CDC that was messing around in the Teen Abstinence thread I'm inclined to be suspicious. However, let's say this data is valid and statistically significant, etc.

The data is fine, but a rubbish conclusion which only appears to be supported data would be... "... and therefore the gay lifestyle is harmful".

Why is this rubbish? Because:

1. There is no "gay lifestyle". Part of the reason I object to this term is because it doesn't exist. If people kept talking about erguty flaffnuz it would annoy me too. As an aside, what is this mysterious gay lifestyle? What does it entail?

The concept of a straight lifestyle is equally pointless. Is who you sleep with the only defining aspect of a lifestyle? I always thought it referred to your job, your taste in music, the food you cook, the car you drive, etc.

2. This conclusion ignores a variety of complex social factors that influence both gays and straights alike, sometimes to varying degrees, maybe sometimes only one or the other... The world is a complex place. People and societies are extremely complex and there's a lot we don't understand about each other. It is not sufficient to take a number and draw a linear conclusion.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

(I'm not ignoring your post TWFM, I just didn't understand it, not having read Michael Foucault. )

Don't let the big words impress you Nurv. I meant to say
"I pointed out what seems obvious to me: that is, that it is the signified (=what you mean to say), not the signifier (=the specific words you use) that metters. "
After saying that, I did not want these words to be overinterpreted, so I put an example of an author (=Michael Foucault) that shows how sometimes the words do matter because the words themselves modify reality (e.g. our actions) via the way in which the words make us think about reality.

As far as the latin, I'll let inked explain it, because I am sure he'll like it (after all it comes from a letter of Paul, called "Saint")

[Embladyne]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

1. There is no "gay lifestyle". Part of the reason I object to this term is because it doesn't exist. If people kept talking about erguty flaffnuz it would annoy me too. As an aside, what is this mysterious gay lifestyle? What does it entail?

The concept of a straight lifestyle is equally pointless. Is who you sleep with the only defining aspect of a lifestyle? I always thought it referred to your job, your taste in music, the food you cook, the car you drive, etc.

2. This conclusion ignores a variety of complex social factors that influence both gays and straights alike, sometimes to varying degrees, maybe sometimes only one or the other... The world is a complex place. People and societies are extremely complex and there's a lot we don't understand about each other. It is not sufficient to take a number and draw a linear conclusion.

I very much agree. I don't think however that even the sentence "the average gay man has a lifestyle 7-10 years shorter than a straight man." makes sense. Lifestyle should probally be replaced with lifespan here, if I understand your meaning correctly. (Not to attack you. It just sounds funny to me.)

Now, to add on to your arguement:
Lifestyle makes sense when referring to monetary class of people, because the effects of money or lack of money create a much more homogenous range of effects than sexuality does. Also, lifestyle makes sense when refferring to what scene a person is part of. Yes, there are some scenes that are comprised mainly or completely of homosexual people, but they are not representative of all homosexuals. They are a subset, if you will. Is the soccermom lifestyle representative of all mothers in the U.S.?

[inked]

Embladyne,

If you said Dorothy L'amour was a soccer mom, folks would know what you meant and what it meant about the lady's lifestyle. Similarly, if you said Betty Boop led a flapper lifestyle, or Arwen an elven lifestyle until she changed for a mortal lifestyle.

You acknowledge the existence of a gay lifestyle op cit. What's the problem

Soccermom, flapper, elvish, mortal, gay...all accurate within their scope!


omnia munda mundis...

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

omnia munda mundis...

I was sure you would have appreciated it...

[inked]

TWFM,
latinate!

[inked]

In this week's edition of NEWSWEEK (March 14 edition), page 21, "Perspectives", right hand column, 4th paragraph from the bottom, we
note:

"Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career." Actress JADA PINKETT SMITH, speaking at Harvard's Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations. Harvard's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance has called her remarks "heteronormative" and wants an apology.

Come on, folks! Isn't this a bit much even for the adamantly PC?

You have a successful black actress extolling the achievements of black women (in her person) and women (as a group) and she is accused of being "heteronormative" by some BGLTS group who demands an apology for being what she is?

Does anyone other than this old straight dude think that this is ridiculous in extremis?

An apology? for success? or for being straight? or for being a mother? or being a wife? or being an actress? or all of the foregoing?

I just don't get this at all - except cynically as a ploy for free publicity. If that, then it worked, but at the cost of a boggart-dispelling "ridikulus"!

[Nerdanel]

If that's what she said, I find the reaction ridiculous. I hope straight people don't get the idea that us homo-/bi-/transsexuals want to make everyone become what we are. I expect people to respect my sexuality because I respect theirs.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree Nerdanel, well said. Sure, the comments are hetero-centric, but she shouldn't have to apologize for it in my opinion. It's not that big a deal.

Originally Posted by inked

An apology? for success? or for being straight? or for being a mother? or being a wife? or being an actress? or all of the foregoing?

I think what they want an apology for is for not saying "Good partner" or something more PC, not any of the above.

[The Gaffer]

I agree that this is a ridiculous statement and would put it in the same category as statements that gays should choose to behave straight

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

21st april - national GLBT awareness day

did you know, GLBT persons are forbidden to give blood, ever?
a 50 yr old businessman goes to thailand, has unprotected sex with 20 prostitutes and can give blood
1 50 yr old gay man, you has only ever had protected sex, and only with one person, can not
they test the blood for HIV and others beforehand anyway, seem slightly wrong to you? cos' i sure as hell know it does to me...

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

21st april - national GLBT awareness day

did you know, GLBT persons are forbidden to give blood, ever?
a 50 yr old businessman goes to thailand, has unprotected sex with 20 prostitutes and can give blood
1 50 yr old gay man, you has only ever had protected sex, and only with one person, can not
they test the blood for HIV and others beforehand anyway, seem slightly wrong to you? cos' i sure as hell know it does to me...

In Finland, lesbians can give blood.. As I've heard (I haven't given blood yet: I'm about to next week, maybe I know more then) they only ask wether you've had unprotected sex with a man if you are a man.

I think it's very, very wrong, and it seems strange to me that even countries like Finland, who consider themselves advanced and unprejudiced, still have these restrictions.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Embladyne

I very much agree. I don't think however that even the sentence "the average gay man has a lifestyle 7-10 years shorter than a straight man." makes sense. Lifestyle should probally be replaced with lifespan here, if I understand your meaning correctly. (Not to attack you. It just sounds funny to me.)

No worries Em, that's what I meant anyway. See how confusing this silly lifestyle notion is? (post edited)

Originally Posted by Embladyne

Now, to add on to your arguement:
Lifestyle makes sense when referring to monetary class of people, because the effects of money or lack of money create a much more homogenous range of effects than sexuality does. Also, lifestyle makes sense when refferring to what scene a person is part of. Yes, there are some scenes that are comprised mainly or completely of homosexual people, but they are not representative of all homosexuals. They are a subset, if you will. Is the soccermom lifestyle representative of all mothers in the U.S.?

I agree, though I wouldn't say money creates a completely homogenous way of living. But I see what you mean here. (I equate lifestyle with "way of living".)
What I, and I believe, Embladyne, are trying to get at here, is that it doesn't make sense to say that sexual orientation can determine lifestyle (way of living).
It's dangerous to make assumptions from someone's lifestyle. You weren't doing this Em, but it occured to me that people might when you mentioned soccer moms.
Since I played soccer for years and years, and sometimes my mom cut up oranges for the team, my mom was technically a soccer mom. (Though, she didn't have a minivan to drive half the team to games, which is the image I get from soccer mom.) However, there's much more to my mom than driving me to soccer games and making me a dinner I can eat in the car.

Originally Posted by inked

If you said Dorothy L'amour was a soccer mom, folks would know what you meant and what it meant about the lady's lifestyle. Similarly, if you said Betty Boop led a flapper lifestyle, or Arwen an elven lifestyle until she changed for a mortal lifestyle.

You acknowledge the existence of a gay lifestyle op cit. What's the problem

Soccermom, flapper, elvish, mortal, gay...all accurate within their scope!

I could determine something from each, but what ones determine lifestyle?

Soccer mom - drives one or more children to soccer games and might also help with the team in some way. Has at least one child of her own who plays soccer.

Flapper - wear's a certain kind of dress and goes to parties?

Elvish - lives in Mirkwood, Lothlorien, or Mithlond, or has sailed into the West. (Post second age. I don't feel like listing all the places Elves listed prior to that. ) Only dies if slain, but can die of grief.

Mortal - has a limited lifespan, and includes Hobbits and Dwarves as well as humans.

Gay - is attracted to people of the same gender

Soccer mom and flapper (probably) tell you a little about how these people might go about their day. Elvish, mortal, and gay tell you a tiny tiny bit. How much can you really determine from someone's lifespan, or who someone is attracted to?

As I said before, the concept of a straight lifestyle is equally pointless in my opinion. Case study - me. I will exchange my being straight for being gay and see how that changes the way I live (hypothetically obviously).

Changes:
- I don't have a boyfriend, I'm probably not dating anyone*
- I would probably put some effort into meeting another lesbian that I'd like to go out with (thus far I haven't put any effort into dating, really)
- I came out in high school, but only to my best friends

(I want to put more, but I honestly can't think of anything)

Not changing:
- I'm a forestry student
- I have enough money to live, but I have a student loan and have to work whenever possible to avoid debt
- My best friends from high school are my among best friends to this day, and they stood by me, never betraying my confidence (I love my friends. I'm so lucky)
- I played a lot of sports and am still (more or less) active in karate
- I love cooking and good food, drawing, painting, music, and writing


* It's more likely that I wouldn't be dating anyone, because I don't know anyone who's a lesbian, and I'm a shy participant of the whole dating circuit thing. This aspect of my personality is something that wouldn't change though.

The things that change aren't the aspects that define my lifestyle. The biggest defining factors for me are being a penniless, sport-loving student who likes cooking and eating nice food. (And going to saunas. I love the sauna.)

And that, my friend, is why I take issue with the lifestyle thing. People (not necessarily you, but people could) use the term "gay lifestyle" to make stereotypes, when in fact, being gay doesn't affect your lifestyle all that much.

Lastly, a few questions for Inked...
- What my post, now numbered #164? I only ask since it's related to this one, as well as you last post.
- What is a gay lifestyle? Or a straight lifestyle? Inquiring minds want to know!

EDIT: Cross-posted with Nerdanel

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

In Finland, lesbians can give blood.. As I've heard (I haven't given blood yet: I'm about to next week, maybe I know more then) they only ask wether you've had unprotected sex with a man if you are a man.

I think it's very, very wrong, and it seems strange to me that even countries like Finland, who consider themselves advanced and unprejudiced, still have these restrictions.

in england, it's
'have you had sexual relations with a member of your same gender?'
if yes, we don't want your blood, thank you very much!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

In Finland, lesbians can give blood.. As I've heard (I haven't given blood yet: I'm about to next week, maybe I know more then) they only ask wether you've had unprotected sex with a man if you are a man.

I think it's very, very wrong, and it seems strange to me that even countries like Finland, who consider themselves advanced and unprejudiced, still have these restrictions.

It is wrong, and it doesn't make sense! Ignorance usually doesn't though.

Shouldn't they ask everyone if they've had unprotected sex with anyone? Maybe also subtly check everyone for signs of heroin use? And other sensible security measures?

Or would that make too much sense.

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

in england, it's
'have you had sexual relations with a member of your same gender?'
if yes, we don't want your blood, thank you very much!

Yeah, someone might catch gay!

This is, of course, one of the stupidest statements in the history of time.

Like I said above, I think rigorous screening of blood, including a test for HIV, hepatitis C, and anything else that's a big worry with blood donations. (Maybe Inked could shed some more light on that? )

EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to add that it's possible to read this entire thread now. It's only nine pages!

[Insidious Rex]

Good grief all those fabulous old posts are gone. If they are archived will you be able to pull them up by searching through the old posts option?

[Nurvingiel]

Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your subtext?

Actually, there were some really good posts. But since I don't see anyone's post count dropping all the axed threads are probably not deleted forever. Let's give the board/server/whoever time to work this out.

We now return to our regularly scheduled topic.

[inked]

Yes, Inked will shed light on the absolutely correct screening of blood donors.

Having lived through the discovery of herpes genitalis, AIDS/HIV, Hepatitis B, C, D et alia whilst a physician, I can well recall the transmission of these viral agents via transfusions. The difficulty then (and now) is that of detection of these agents.

Historically the hepatitides were understood to be transmitted, but the capabilities of screeening were non-existent for the blood and blood products themselves initially. Much research led to the development of appropriate tests for the agents involved - now an alphabet soup of viruses. The previously unknown HepB increased risks of cancer in chronic carriers. And those chronic carriers were apparently physically health and normal. So now with Hep C. So, for a long time a standard question has been have you had jaundice or your eyes turned yellow? There are other liver problems and non-viral causes of jaundice of course. But those with such a history were declined as donors.

Now whilst we can screen for the evidence of the virus, past infection, chronic carrier status, and immunize against it, it may be possible for people who hav had it and recovered to donate blood. But that is not yet true for the other members of the alphabet soup of viral agents.

So, if you are ever in a car crash or serious accident, and receive donated blood, you can know (at least in 1st world countries) that the blood has been screened for hepatitis. That does not mean you will not get hepatitis.
If the agent was in the incubatory stage and not detected, infection in a recipient could still occur. Or you could acquire a viral agent for which no screening test is yet available or from an agent not yet known or identified.

And this is not just an issue for blood transplants! It is a serious consideration in all tissue transplants. There are documented cases of rabies transmission via corneal transplants!

So when you go to donate blood or tissue, it must be screened.

One of the cheapest and most effective screening techniques is the questionaire to be completed by the potential donor and reviewed by the collectors. You will have noted if you have attempted to donate blood that persons are excluded on a number of grounds: medication, travel, sexual behavior, recent illness, exposure to known diseases, history of drug use,etc.

To the current rage of the GLBT-oriented, the ability to test for HIV agents was at first that old proven technique of the questionaire. Since the retroviral agent was not identified until long after the blood supply had been contaminated for years, behavior which was and is associated with transmission of the agent was the initial identifier. It remains so today. Yes, screening techniques have been developed. They are costly and time-consuming (though less now than in the 90s). Why go to the expense and time committment of drawing blood, testing it, separating it, storing it, and transporting it - all to discover that the donor was screening test + for the agent? So, persons who have not met the criteria on account of sexual behavior, IV drug use, getting tattooed within time ranges, traveled out of country, etc. are all treated equally: they are declined as donors.

This is simple public health measure NOT DISCRIMINATION IN THE POLITICAL SENSE . It is necessary discrimination of potential for disease transmission. I have donated blood since college. I have been declined for travel within specific time frames, the use of certain medication in a time frame, and having a too low platelet count (I argued with the tech that it was normal within the limits of the test's error range, but I didn't win!). I was also declined once because I was in the 6 month window after a needle stick in surgery before we had screening tests for HIV that were very accurate.

The sad truth is that many people will lie about their answers to the questionaire. The blood has to be tested anyway. But you can cut down tremendously on the costs if you eliminate risky donors.

You have to agonized over screening patients who had received blood transfusions or products while awaiting tests to see if what was a life-saving procedure has transmitted a potentially fatal or fatal illness to appreciate the necessity of this process.

And if I recall correctly, another question is the actual number of sexual partners in the past twelve months. That question screens for heterosexual as well as homosexual behaviors that place the risk too high.

Certain things cause disease. Certain behaviors place persons at risk for acquiring diseases. The simple removal of at risk individuals from the donor pool is simply good medicine, science, and economics. And you gay folks are not alone in being so excluded. (Or, take refuge in the prior knowledge that "heteronormative" behaviors exclude people too - like the spouses or partners of known HepB carriers, HepC carriers, etc).

Questions?