how many more sexual genres are we gonna have

Ok. Sticking my neck out here but here goes.
Step daughter has a friend who is a female. Who came out as bisexual. Fine. Who then decided she must be addressed as "he". Fine. He then decided he was non gender specific i think and had to be addressed as "they". We were admonished constantly by the daughter in law for not using "they" as the term of reference.
Now they have a new girlfriend and are back to being addressed as "he".

The bottom line is i don't care whether they like males, females, both, neither. It's not an issue for me. The only issue is the contempt shown if you happen to use the wrong form of reference.

It's annoying. It creates a problem where, in the main, there isn't one. I get that there are still prejudiced people. That's inexcusable. But shaming those who are in your corner just because they have used an out of date term of reference is just daft and self defeating.

Rant over.

 

Pan handle insertion society

 

Id tell both the step daughter and the he/she to get a grip

 

It’s like the Bishop of Bath and Wells on Blackadder II: “I’ll do anything to anything”

 

If I'd been around in the late 60's / early 70's, on this evidence I'd definitely have been pansexual. However, as they are all now in their 70's, I don't think I'll be going in that direction. Especially as one of them is dead, which would just make me a necrophiliac.

Edit: on further investigation, it appears that four of them are no longer alive. I'm definitely not going there.

 

Similar to my thinking. I worked in the entertainment industry which, for whatever reason, attracts people of a different sexual persuasion, none of which I have or ever had problems with.Some were bisexual homosexual or lesbian but most did not 'play' on it, not through any fear of persecution, but because it was, for the rest of us, irrelevant and unremarkable, although there were always some 'divas' who were exhibitionists and extrovert whether hetero...bi... homo sexual or lesbian who used to 'camp it up'.
I worked for/with someone for several years who was homosexual. Only certain mannerisms on rare occasions gave him away. He once made a subtle pass at me, nothing weird or disturbing and once I made it clear I was hetero, it was all fine. He was a great manager, considerate and well liked by all the staff.
My point though is many people with non heterosexual orientation argue, rightly, they should not be labelled, persecuted, etc and should be treated exactly the same as the rest of us in life, yet many draw attention to themselves, a big example being 'gay pride' marches. Others deliberately dress and behave to deliberately draw attention to themselves and often in an attempt to create controversy. I don't hold with the argument that it is there to draw attention to the persecution they suffer. Whilst they should not have to 'hide' there is an argument that exhibitionist behaviour is counter productive to gaining acceptance throughout the whole of society.
All IMO of course.

 

When I asked Mrs Tonjytyke what a pansexual was, she said “It’s someone who might actually s**g you!”
Is this true???

 

Doubt it, everyone has boundaries.

 

One of the problems...and it's a human condition...rather than race,sexuality or gender related, is that if you discover a cause or feel yourself part of an oppressed group, is that it can sometimes lead to an overreaction , perhaps being best described as over zealous.
In the 1970's I used to go boozing with my friends Joy and partner Ian.
Joy was a refugee who had lost her family in the holocaust and had a tendency to be very outspoken on things she thought were wrong ( who am I to criticise though?). She was allied to all groups she felt oppressed, but primarily became a firebrand feminist.
We went out to a boozer one day and my old man came along, he happened to get to the door first and held it open for second in line Joy to go in....she absolutely exploded....physically pushing my dad through the door whilst effing and blinding at him...and not in jest.
The next hour of the visit was me sitting Joy down in a corner convincing her that the reason the old man had opened the door for her was just because he was polite and would have held it open for Ian or myself had we been second in line. Fortunately reason prevailed and we carried on drinking together for several years. The point I am making is that Joy was a bloody good person and friend, but hadn't considered that others might do or say things in complete innocence with no other agenda.

 

Very deceiving thread title. Thought it was going to be about your favourite porn category.

 

Agreed.

 

I don't have a problem with any person calling themselves whatever they want, although I do think the massive focus on the topic is becoming overwhelming and out of proportion. But I can't get with the use of the word "they" to address an individual, when "they" is a plural term in the context of when it would be used in these circumstances. It's a mangling of the language and I think it's getting a bit ridiculous.

 

At worst it will get you beaten up, in Glasgow.

 

Fully agree. One person can't be a plural.

 

They is also the singular in English

 

They is also singular.

The context to which you refer accommodates "they" in the singular. There is no grammatical inaccuracy.

e.g. Q. Why is the plumber not here?
A. They are running late.

It's the collapsing of genders/sex that you appear to dislike.

 

I identify myself as a lamp post

 

A bloke at work a couple of years ago announced that he was going to become a woman (they now are). He was called 'Andy' and said henceforth he wanted to be called 'Mandy' (Man-dy...get it?)
I laughed but on reflection thought it was brilliant that they could approach such a psychologically fragile period in their lives with such good humour.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Funnily enough so did I but I got rather bored with dogs p1ssing on my post.